Asian Spine J Search

CLOSE


Asian Spine J > Volume 19(2); 2025 > Article
Lee, Park, Kim, Hwang, Lee, Lee, Jang, Kim, Cho, and Lee: O-arm navigation-based transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation: an innovative preliminary study

Abstract

Study Design

Technical case report.

Purpose

To present a novel navigation-assisted transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) lumbar discectomy technique for managing upper lumbar disc herniation.

Overview of Literature

Upper lumbar disc herniation is significantly less common than lower lumbar disc herniation, accounting for only 1%–2% of cases. However, treatment is more challenging and is associated with worse outcomes. Anatomical differences between the upper and lower lumbar spine complicate the standard interlaminar approach using UBE, making it insufficient for complete removal of herniated discs. Integrating endoscopic spine surgery with intraoperative navigation provides three-dimensional computer-reconstructed visual data, thereby enhancing the feasibility of the technique.

Methods

The UBE approach targeted the ventral part of the superior articular process in the transforaminal UBE setup, specifically for upper lumbar disc herniation, with an approach angle of approximately 30º on the axial plane. Intraoperative navigation was employed to improve puncture accuracy for this relatively unfamiliar surgical technique. Navigation-assisted transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy was performed on four patients presenting with back or leg discomfort due to disc herniation at the L1–L2 or L2–L3 levels.

Results

All patients experienced symptom relief and were discharged on postoperative day 2.

Conclusions

Transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy is a viable therapeutic option for upper lumbar paracentral disc herniation, which is typically associated with poor prognosis. Integrating navigation integration into this novel approach enhances precision and safety.

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

Introduction

Compared with the lower lumbar spine, the upper lumbar spine experiences disc herniation less frequently. The L1–L2, L2–L3, and L3–L4 levels collectively account for 5% of all lumbar disc herniations [1]. When excluding the L3–L4 level, upper lumbar disc herniation represents only 1%–2% of all lumbar disc herniations [2]. In this study, despite some controversy, the upper lumbar spine was delineated as L1–L2 and L2–L3 based on previous research [3,4].
Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) is associated with several advantages over open discectomy, including reduced bleeding, minimized muscle damage, decreased spinal canal scarring, and shorter hospitalization [58]. Consequently, TELD has been extensively adopted in lumbar discectomy procedures [9,10], particularly in addressing upper lumbar spine issues [11].
Recently, unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine procedures—a novel minimally invasive spine surgery technique—have gained popularity [1216]. Although the transforaminal UBE approach has been described [17], most spine surgeons continue to favor the interlaminar approach [1820]. The surgical anatomy for the extraforaminal approach may be complex and challenging to navigate, requiring advanced surgical skills and competency for design and intraoperative application to determine the appropriate puncture trajectory foraminoplasty [11,21,22].
Navigation image-guiding systems enable surgeons to monitor surgical instruments in real-time within three-dimensional (3D) space, allowing for precise visualization of the spine’s anatomical structures through multiplanar imaging reconstruction. Navigation-assisted endoscopic surgery has demonstrated safety and efficacy, significantly reducing operating challenges, improving puncture accuracy, and minimizing radiation exposure for medical personnel [2326]. While previous reports have documented the precision, safety, and viability of integrating navigation in lumbar UBE procedures [27], O-arm-based navigation in transforaminal UBE discectomy remains undocumented.
In this study, a novel navigation-assisted transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy technique was introduced, which may improve treatment outcomes for upper lumbar disc herniation. It also presented cases successfully treated with this novel treatment approach.

Materials and Methods

Ethical statement

Data access and usage were approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board. Pre-approval was not required for this study, as it involved the use of anonymous secondary data published for research purposes.

Study design

All procedures were performed by a single surgeon with extensive experience, having conducted over 1,200 cases involving UBE laminotomy for bilateral decompression, UBE interlaminar discectomy, endoscopic fusion surgery, microscopic spine surgery, and uniportal full endoscopic spine surgery. Table 1 summarizes the patient demographics.
This approach was employed for paracentral disc herniations at the upper lumbar levels, specifically L1–L2 and L2–L3. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) high-grade migrated lumbar disc herniation, such as zone 1 or 5; (2) need for resection of >50% of the superior articular process (SAP) on preoperative computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); (3) spinal stenosis due to causes other than disc herniation; (4) spondylolisthesis with Meyerding grade >2 on simple lateral radiographs; (5) lumbar instability (motion >3 mm at the surgical level, as measured on flexion-extension radiographs of the lumbar spine); and (6) history of spine surgery or infection at the same lumbar level.

Surgical technique

Operating room setup

The O-arm/StealthStation system (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA), a 3D real-time image-guided navigation system, was employed to provide automated registration with intraoperative post-positioning CT. The SureTrak II Universal Tracker (Medtronic Inc.) was attached to the biportal endoscope trocar, allowing real-time observation of the endoscopic working channel’s depth and position on the O-arm/StealthStation monitor. Both the endoscopic and O-arm systems were utilized concurrently throughout the procedure. All surgeons were on the patient’s operating side, with the operating table centrally placed and the endoscopic monitors and O-arm camera positioned on the opposite side (Fig. 1A).
A 4.0-mm diameter 0° viewing lumbar endoscope, certified for spine surgery in the Republic of Korea (Techcord Inc., Daejeon, Korea), was used. Additional equipment included a VAPR side effect electrode and wedge electrode as a bipolar radiofrequency probe (Depuy Mitek Inc., Raynham, MA, USA), a high-speed electric diamond bur of 3- or 4-mm diameter (Primado 2; NSK, Fukushima, Japan), serial dilators, and standard spinal discectomy instruments, such as hook dissectors, Kerrison punches, and forceps (Fig. 1B).

Patient positioning

All procedures were performed under general endotracheal anesthesia, with patients placed in a prone position on a well-cushioned, supportive, radiolucent table, allowing the abdomen to hang freely. Waterproof draping was applied in all cases, with a customized drape preferred for lumbar endoscopic procedures. Assuming that the surgeon is right-handed, the right side was designated the working instruments portal, whereas the left side served as the endoscopic portal. The saline irrigation bag was positioned 30–50 cm above the patient.

O-arm navigation system setup

The patient’s skin surface served as the navigation reference, secured with a surgical adhesive drape for stability. The navigation probe was registered, and intraoperative CT imaging was performed using the O-arm imaging system. The surgical site was traversed in each of the four anatomical planes using the probe (Fig. 2A–C).

Incision planning and application of the biportal endoscope

The left-hand approach was used in this description. The navigation dilator probe was extended longitudinally (Fig. 2C), facilitating precise puncture trajectory targeting the ventral tip of the SAP. The appropriate skin entry point was easily determined using axial views that aligned with the anterolateral margin of the facet joint while sagittal reconstructions were aimed at the ventral tip of the SAP. The dilator probe was inserted at a typical distance of 7–11 cm from the midline (Fig. 3A), avoiding bone obstructions such as the thickened transverse processes. To mitigate the risk of nerve root damage, the dilator was positioned within the foraminal region of the ventral SAP (Fig. 3B, C). A serial dilator was subsequently inserted to separate fascia and muscle layers, facilitating instrument insertion through the working portal and preventing disorientation.
A second vertical incision (0.7 cm) was made approximately 2.5–4.5 cm cranially from the first caudal incision to accommodate the endoscope (cranial UBE portal) (Fig. 3D, E). The SureTrak II Universal Tracker was attached to the UBE trocar, inserted through the cranial portal, and positioned within the foraminal region of the ventral part of the SAP. The UBE endoscope was then inserted. Endoscopic irrigation was performed using a gravity-based pressure system, and surgical instruments were inserted through the caudal working portal. As the UBE canular point approached the lateral pedicular margin, its position at the ventral part of the SAP was verified.

O-arm-based navigation surgical procedure

The endoscope (Techcord Inc.) was positioned at the extraforaminal region, specifically at the foramen entry point (Fig. 4A). Hemostasis was maintained via endoscopic visualization using a bipolar radiofrequency coagulator (Depuy Mitek Inc.) (Supplement 1).
Depending on the anatomical structure of the SAP, partial resection was performed as necessary. Navigation tracking allowed continuous visualization of SAP anatomy before drilling, ensuring precise navigation (Fig. 4A). The endoscope advanced while drilling the part of the SAP, with continuous monitoring of foramen depth to avoid potential injury to intracanal neurological structures.
The endoscope was maneuvered within Kambin’s triangle, and the position of the exiting nerve root was verified (Fig. 4B). Partial resection of the lateral margin of the ligamentum flavum allowed for the opening of the epidural space. To enhance horizontal alignment, the distal UBE was tilted downward before inserting the endoscope into the spinal canal, providing direct visualization of the epidural space.
Given that the lateral margin of the posterior longitudinal ligament (PLL) could not be initially observed, partial resection of the ligamentum flavum was performed to reveal the PLL. Upon inserting the endoscope into the spinal canal, the herniated disc became visible on the endoscopic image (Fig. 4C). The working instruments were positioned near the herniated disc without causing neurological damage. The sequestered nucleus beneath the PLL was extracted using various forceps, and discectomy was completed. The ability to use multiple forceps during UBE is advantageous (Fig. 4D).
Thermal annuloplasty was then performed using a bipolar radiofrequency coagulator following the excision of the herniated disc. The paracentral disc was removed, and the exiting and traversing roots were decompressed. Postoperative assessment using the navigation tracker confirmed the procedure’s success by verifying the upward, downward, and midline positions within the disc space (Fig. 4E).
If bleeding occurred within the epidural space or foraminal/extraforaminal region, a closed suction drain was placed and subsequently removed 12 hours after surgery. The patient was discharged the following day after drain removal.

Cases

Case 1

A 59-year-old man presented with tingling sensation in his right anterior thigh and severe back discomfort persisting for three months. A right femoral nerve stretch test yielded positive results. MRI revealed compression of the right L2 nerve root and an up-migrated ruptured disc at L2–L3 in the right paracentral region, accompanied by grade 1 spondylolisthesis (Fig. 5A). Transforaminal UBE discectomy was performed via the right side. Postoperative MRI revealed successful removal of the herniated disc, and the patient’s symptoms subsided (Fig. 5B). The suction drain was removed on postoperative day 1, having collected 22 mL of blood. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 2.

Case 2

A 47-year-old man with a 10-month history of severe middle back discomfort underwent MRI, which revealed a paracentrally located disc compressing the L1–L2 dural sac (Fig. 6A). Neurological examination showed positive bilateral femoral nerve stretch test results. Previous conservative treatments, including medication, physical therapy, and epidural steroid injections, failed to alleviate the pain. Transforaminal UBE discectomy was performed via the left side (Fig. 2) (Supplement 1). Postoperative MRI confirmed complete removal of the herniated disc, and the symptoms subsided (Fig. 6B). The patient was discharged on postoperative day 2.

Case 3

A 71-year-old man presented with significant radicular pain in the left leg and gait disturbance. Motor weakness in the quadriceps femoris and tibialis anterior were graded as 4. MRI revealed a significant paracentral disc herniation with spinal stenosis compressing the dural sac at L2–L3. The herniated disc compressed the cauda equina, with redundant nerve roots observed in the T2 sagittal scan (Fig. 7A). Transforaminal UBE discectomy was performed via the left side. Postoperative MRI showed successful removal of the herniated disc, with dural expansion observed (Fig. 7B). The patient was discharged on postoperative day 2 after symptom resolution.

Case 4

A 58-year-old man with a history of radiating discomfort in his right anterior thigh persisting for over 12 months underwent MRI, which revealed an up-migrated ruptured disc in the right paracentral region at L1–L2 (Supplement 2A). Transforaminal UBE discectomy was performed via the right side. Postoperative MRI confirmed successful removal of the herniated disc with dural expansion, although a small, migrated fragment remained (Supplement 2B). Postoperatively, the patient’s symptoms were alleviated. The suction drain was removed on postoperative day 1, having collected 19 mL of blood. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 2.

Discussion

Surgical access to the upper lumbar spine is challenging because of the limited foraminal size, the relatively small canal housing dense neural tissue tissues, the narrow gap between the exiting nerve root and dura, and the dorsal expansion of the abdominal cavity [2831]. Anatomically, the upper lumbar spine differs significantly from the lower lumbar spine, necessitating independent surgical strategies [3,3236]. Choi et al. [33] described a posterior transdural technique for calcified upper lumbar disc herniation, which preserves bilateral facets but requires both dorsal and ventral durotomies, increasing the risk of nerve root damage and cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Therefore, a microscopic oblique paraspinal technique was developed, which involves the removal of only the anterolateral portion of the ipsilateral facet joint and a narrow strip of the lateral pars [34]. For endoscopic treatment, TELD is a successful surgical procedure for upper lumbar disc herniation, offering reduced invasiveness, lower complication rates, and improved return-to-work capacity [3,11]. However, the steep learning curve of the transforaminal approach poses significant challenges for full endoscopic surgery [37]. Biportal endoscopy addresses some of these challenges by allowing separation between the working portal and the viewing field, thereby expanding the viewing field from multiple angles [3841]. Despite the introduction of the transforaminal approach using UBE [17], it is predominantly associated with full endoscopic techniques, making it unfamiliar to spine surgeons who are accustomed to interlaminar approaches.
Chen et al. [42] utilized the O-arm navigation system during interlaminar contralateral endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy and demonstrated its safety and efficacy in treating lumbar foraminal stenosis. Their findings indicated that this navigation system reduces facet joint violation, shortens the surgeon’s learning curve, and minimizes radiation exposure. Positive outcomes have also been reported with UBE-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion under O-arm navigation [43,44], as well as thoracic disc removal [45,46]. Real-time intraoperative anatomical orientation mitigates operating challenges, improves puncture accuracy, shortens the surgeon’s learning curve, and minimizes radiation exposure for medical personnel [2327]. In this study, the navigation system was used to safely and efficiently implement new transforaminal UBE approaches. Navigation-predicted trajectory measurement helped prevent abdominal injury and allowed horizontal endoscope tilting to access the ventral portion of the SAP while minimizing unnecessary facet joint resection. Damage to the exiting nerve root is a significant complication of TELD, with reported incidences ranging from 9.3% to 26% [47,48]. However, navigation-guided transforaminal UBE effectively prevented this complication by enabling precise targeting and facilitating direct visualization of the entry process without close proximity to the exiting nerve roots. Additionally, navigation guidance during endoscope insertion into the foramen allowed the assessment of epidural canal entry from the extra-foramen without requiring repeated C-arm confirmation, improving anatomical accuracy and safety.
Efforts to reduce posterior stabilizing structural damage continue to increase [49,50]. Transforaminal UBE discectomy minimizes facet involvement without compromising posterior stability. Compared with the interlaminar approach, it requires less bone and ligamentum flavum excision, leading to shorter operative times. This technique also allows direct access to the herniated disc, eliminating the need for intraoperative discography, which may otherwise contribute to disc degeneration [51].
Instrumental flexibility is a notable advantage of the transforaminal UBE method, as it separates the working entrance from the endoscope, allowing for the use of various instrument configurations, such as the upward pivot and angled ball tip probes of various sizes, without frequent repositioning. This flexibility provides different perspectives and magnifications, facilitating an easier surgical environment, especially for surgeons who are less familiar with the transforaminal approach.
However, the technique is particularly advantageous for paracentrally protruding discs rather than centrally located discs and is unsuitable for calcified disc herniations due to the difficulty of disc removal and increased risk of dura mater injury caused by adhesions. Although some of this study’s patients had lower lumbar disc herniation, we refrained from performing discectomy in the lower lumbar region to avoid muscle damage and bleeding control challenges associated with the longer surgical trajectory.
One limitation of this approach is the increased surgical duration, primarily due to the additional time required for the navigation system setup. However, proper cooperation among the surgical staff can help reduce the setup time. As surgeons become proficient with this approach, navigation can be selectively employed based on the surgeon’s preference to minimize surgical time. Due to the rarity of upper lumbar disc herniation, the limited patient population and the lack of long-term follow-up are major limitations of this study. Therefore, future studies should address these limitations to validate the findings.

Conclusions

Navigation-assisted transforaminal UBE discectomy is an effective approach for treating upper lumbar paracentral disc herniation, offering favorable surgical outcomes. The integration of navigation technology enhances the precision and adaptability of transforaminal UBE approaches.

Key Points

  • Navigation-assisted endoscopic surgery reduces operating challenges, improves puncture accuracy, and decreases radiation exposure for medical personnel.

  • Navigation-assisted endoscopic surgery improves the surgeon’s learning curve.

  • Transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy demonstrates favorable surgical outcomes in cases of upper lumbar disc herniation, with navigation aiding the adaptation to this new approach.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Supplementary materials can be available from https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2025.0072. Supplement 1. A clip from case 2 demonstrating the surgical set up and step-by-step procedure of O-arm navigation-based transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy at the L2–3 level from the left side. Supplement 2. (A) Preoperative axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows a paracentral up-migration ruptured disc compressing the right exiting L1 nerve root. (B) Postoperative axial MRI shows successful removal of the herniated disc with dural expansion. Sagittal scout image (left upper corner) shows the remnants of a small migrated fragment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: DHL, CKP, JSH. Data curation: DHL, JYL. Formal analysis: DHL, JYL. Investigation: DHL, CKP, JSK. Methodology: DHL, JSH, JYL, DGL, JYK. Software: DHL, JYL, JYK. Resources: DHL, JWJ. Validation: DHL, JSK. Visualization: DHL, JYL. Supervision: DHL, JSK, JWJ. Writing–original draft: DHL, JYL. Writing–review & editing: DHL, JSK, JYL, YEC, DCL. Funding acquisition: CKP. Project administration: CKP, DGL. Final approval of the manuscript: all authors.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary materials can be available from https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2025.0072.

Fig. 1
(A) Operating room setup. (B) Standard tools used in unilateral biportal endoscopy.
asj-2025-0072f1.jpg
Fig. 2
(A) The navigation system receiver was placed on the patient’s skin and secured using the adhesive surgical drape. (B) The navigation probe was used to register and plan the incision for the unilateral biportal endoscopy. (C) Navigation images in each anatomical plane during the incision planning.
asj-2025-0072f2.jpg
Fig. 3
(A) W denotes the working portal, whereas U denotes the unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) portal. Orange vertical lines: the placement of portals in the paraspinal approach. Yellow horizontal lines: the placement of portals in the transforaminal-UBE. Dashed line: the lateral margin of the pedicle line. 1, 2, and 3: distances to portals, where 1 is 7.0–11 cm, 2 is 2.5–4.5 cm, and 3 is 2.0 cm. The working portal in the transforaminal UBE is made parallel to the target disc level. The endoscopic portal is made approximately 2.5–4.5 cm cranial or caudal to the working portal. (B) Insertion of the navigation dilator probe into the working portal incision. (C) During probe insertion, intraoperative computed tomography (CT) navigation was used to accurately identify the anatomic location. (D) Insertion of the UBE trocar with SureTrak II Universal Tracker (Medtronic Inc., USA) into the UBE portal incision. (E) During UBE trocar insertion, intraoperative CT navigation was used to accurately identify the anatomic location.
asj-2025-0072f3.jpg
Fig. 4
Navigation-assisted transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) discectomy. (A) An endoscope (Techcord Inc., Korea) positioned at the extraforaminal region. The anatomy visualized using the navigation tracker before drilling. (B) The endoscope is advanced while the ventral part of the superior articular process is being drilled. While viewing the exiting nerve root (black star) the depth of the foramen may be continuously monitored under navigation. (C) The black circle indicates the traversing nerve root, the black triangle indicates the posterior longitudinal ligament, and the black square indicates the disc space. (D) The sequestrated nucleus is removed. (E) Using the navigation tracker, procedure success can be achieved by checking the anatomical positions.
asj-2025-0072f4.jpg
Fig. 5
(A) Preoperative axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows a paracentral up-migration ruptured disc compressing right exiting the L2 nerve root with spondylolisthesis (left upper corner). (B) Postoperative axial MRI shows complete removal of the herniated disc.
asj-2025-0072f5.jpg
Fig. 6
(A) Preoperative axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows a paracentral down-migration ruptured disc compressing the dural sac at L1–L2. (B) Postoperative axial MRI shows complete removal of the herniated disc.
asj-2025-0072f6.jpg
Fig. 7
(A) Preoperative axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows a paracentral ruptured disc compressing the dural sac at L2–L3. Sagittal scout image (left upper corner) shows the redundant nerve roots caused by compression of the cauda equina. (B) Postoperative axial MRI shows complete removal of the herniated disc. A closed suction drain was inserted via the left percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy trajectory.
asj-2025-0072f7.jpg
asj-2025-0072f8.jpg
Table 1
Summary of patient characteristics
Case no. Age (yr) Sex Level Side of approach Location of skin incisiona) (mm) Location of LDH Operation time (min)
1 59 M L2–3 Rt 85 Paracentral 60
2 47 M L1–2 Lt 75 Paracentral 70
3 71 M L2–3 Lt 86 Paracentral 60
4 58 M L1–2 Rt 75 Paracentral 65

LDH, lumbar disc herniation; M, male; L, lumbar spinal segment; Rt, right; Lt, left.

a) Distance from the midline to the skin incision.

References

1. Albert TJ, Balderston RA, Heller JG, et al. Upper lumbar disc herniations. J Spinal Disord 1993;6:351–9.
crossref pmid
2. Hsu K, Zucherman J, Shea W, et al. High lumbar disc degeneration: incidence and etiology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990;15:679–82.
crossref pmid
3. Ahn Y, Lee SH, Lee JH, Kim JU, Liu WC. Transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation: clinical outcome, prognostic factors, and technical consideration. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2009;151:199–206.
crossref pmid pdf
4. Sanderson SP, Houten J, Errico T, Forshaw D, Bauman J, Cooper PR. The unique characteristics of “upper” lumbar disc herniations. Neurosurgery 2004;55:385–9.
crossref pmid pdf
5. Son S, Yoo BR, Kim HJ, Song SK, Ahn Y. Efficacy of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy in elderly patients over 65 years of age compared to young adults. Neurospine 2023;20:597–607.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
6. Yang X, Zhang S, Su J, et al. Comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes between transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy and microdiscectomy: a follow-up exceeding 5 years. Neurospine 2024;21:303–13.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
7. Pestonji MD, Langaliya MK, Banka P. A novel transforaminal approach for upmigrated lumbar disc herniations in the hidden zone of MacNab: a surgical technical note. J Minim Invasive Spine Surg Tech 2024;9(Suppl 2): S185–93.
crossref pdf
8. Ahn Y, Oh HK, Kim H, Lee SH, Lee HN. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy: an advanced surgical technique and clinical outcomes. Neurosurgery 2014;75:124–33.
pmid
9. Liu Y, Kotheeranurak V, Quillo-Olvera J, et al. A 30-year worldwide research productivity of scientific publication in full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery: quantitative and qualitative analysis. Neurospine 2023;20:374–89.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
10. Khandge AV, Sharma SB, Kim JS. The evolution of transforaminal endoscopic spine surgery. World Neurosurg 2021;145:643–56.
crossref pmid
11. Shin MH, Bae JS, Cho HL, Jang IT. Extradiscal epiduroscopic percutaneous endoscopic discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation a technical note. Clin Spine Surg 2019;32:98–103.
crossref pmid
12. Soliman HM. Irrigation endoscopic decompressive laminotomy: a new endoscopic approach for spinal stenosis decompression. Spine J 2015;15:2282–9.
crossref pmid
13. Kwon H, Park JY. The role and future of endoscopic spine surgery: a narrative review. Neurospine 2023;20:43–55.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
14. Park CW, Oh JY. Biportal endoscopic en bloc removal of the ligamentum flavum for spinal stenosis: nuances for the “butterfly” technique. Asian Spine J 2024;18:587–93.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
15. Lee DY, Kim HS, Park SY, Lee JB. Nonlaminotomy bilateral decompression: a novel approach in biportal endoscopic spine surgery for spinal stenosis. Asian Spine J 2024;18:867–74.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
16. Heo DH, Kim JY, Park JY, et al. Clinical experiences of 3-dimensional biportal endoscopic spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2022;22:231–8.
crossref pmid
17. Segawa T, Iwai H, Inanami H, et al. A new surgical method to treat intracanal lumbar disc herniation using the unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal approach: patient series. J Neurosurg Case Lessons 2024;7:CASE23608.
crossref pmid pmc
18. Soliman HM. Irrigation endoscopic discectomy: a novel percutaneous approach for lumbar disc prolapse. Eur Spine J 2013;22:1037–44.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
19. Lim KT, Nam HG, Kim SB, Kim HS, Park JS, Park CK. Therapeutic feasibility of full endoscopic decompression in one- to three-level lumbar canal stenosis via a single skin port using a new endoscopic system, percutaneous stenoscopic lumbar decompression. Asian Spine J 2019;13:272–82.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
20. Kim HS, Kim JY, Lee DC, Lee JH, Jang IT. A novel technique of the full endoscopic interlaminar contralateral approach for symptomatic extraforaminal juxtafacet cysts. J Minim Invasive Spine Surg Tech 2022;7:157–63.
crossref pdf
21. Ahn Y, Rhee DY. Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy for iatrogenic foraminal stenosis following vertebroplasty. Neurospine 2024;21:1137–40.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
22. Nam HG, Kim HS, Lee DK, Park CK, Lim KT. Percutaneous stenoscopic lumbar decompression with paramedian approach for foraminal/extraforaminal lesions. Asian Spine J 2019;13:672–81.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
23. Schmidt BT, Chen KT, Kim J, Brooks NP. Applications of navigation in full-endoscopic spine surgery. Eur Spine J 2024;33:429–37.
crossref pmid pdf
24. Kim JS, Hartl R, Wang MY, Elmi-Terander A. Technical advances in minimally invasive spine surgery: navigation, robotics, endoscopy, augmented and virtual reality. Singapore: Springer; 2022.

25. Kim JH, Jitpakdee K, Kotheeranurak V, et al. Is navigation beneficial for transforaminal endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy?: a preliminary comparison study with fluoroscopic guidance. Eur Spine J 2023;32:2808–18.
crossref pmid pdf
26. Setiawan DR, Giordan E, Lee C, Park CW, Pholprajug P, Kim JS. Navigation-guided endoscopic lumbar decompression on foramen and lateral recess in advanced scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus Video 2024;10:V4.
crossref pmid pmc
27. Kavishwar RA, Liang Y, Lee D, Kim J, Pedraza M, Kim JS. O-arm navigation-guided unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression of far-out syndrome. Neurospine 2024;21:1149–53.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
28. Ruetten S, Komp M, Godolias G. An extreme lateral access for the surgery of lumbar disc herniations inside the spinal canal using the full-endoscopic uniportal transforaminal approach-technique and prospective results of 463 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2570–8.
crossref pmid
29. Oosterhof T, Groenink M, Hulsmans FJ, et al. Quantitative assessment of dural ectasia as a marker for Marfan syndrome. Radiology 2001;220:514–8.
crossref pmid
30. Panjabi MM, Goel V, Oxland T, et al. Human lumbar vertebrae: quantitative three-dimensional anatomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1992;17:299–306.
pmid
31. Osman SG, Marsolais EB. Posterolateral arthroscopic discectomies of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994;(304): 122–9.
crossref pmid
32. Saberi H, Isfahani AV. Higher preoperative Oswestry Disability Index is associated with better surgical outcome in upper lumbar disc herniations. Eur Spine J 2008;17:117–21.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
33. Choi JW, Lee JK, Moon KS, Hur H, Kim YS, Kim SH. Transdural approach for calcified central disc herniations of the upper lumbar spine: technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;7:370–4.
pmid
34. Kim JS, Lee SH, Moon KH, Lee HY. Surgical results of the oblique paraspinal approach in upper lumbar disc herniation and thoracolumbar junction. Neurosurgery 2009;65:95–9.
crossref pmid pdf
35. Quillo-Olvera J, Kim JS. A Novel, Minimally invasive hybrid technique to approach intracanal herniated thoracic discs. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2020;19:E106–16.
crossref pmid pdf
36. Echt M, Holland R, Mowrey W, et al. Surgical outcomes for upper lumbar disc herniations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Spine J 2021;11:802–13.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
37. Ukeba D, Nagahama K, Yamada K, et al. Duckbill release technique for the outside-in method in full-endoscopic spine surgery via transforaminal approach: a technical note. World Neurosurg 2025;193:149–54.
crossref pmid
38. Kim JE, Choi DJ, Park EJ, et al. Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Asian Spine J 2019;13:334–42.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
39. Park SM, Kim HJ, Yeom JS. Is minimally invasive surgery a game changer in spinal surgery? Asian Spine J 2024;18:743–52.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
40. Park SM, Song KS, Ham DW, et al. Safety profile of biportal endoscopic spine surgery compared to conventional microscopic approach: a pooled analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials. Neurospine 2024;21:1190–8.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
41. Kim JY, Ha JS, Lee CK, et al. Biportal endoscopic posterior thoracic laminectomy for thoracic spondylotic myelopathy caused by ossification of the ligamentum flavum: technical developments and outcomes. Neurospine 2023;20:129–40.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
42. Chen KT, Song MS, Kim JS. How I do it?: interlaminar contralateral endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy assisted with the O-arm navigation. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2020;162:121–5.
crossref pmid pdf
43. Quillo-Olvera J, Quillo-Resendiz J, Quillo-Olvera D, Barrera-Arreola M, Kim JS. Ten-step biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion under computed tomography-based intraoperative navigation: technical report and preliminary outcomes in Mexico. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2020;19:608–18.
crossref pmid pdf
44. Suvithayasiri S, Kim YJ, Liu Y, Lee C, Vasant Khandge A, Kim JS. Placement of 2 cages using navigation-guided biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: illustrative case. J Neurosurg Case Lessons 2024;8:CASE23512.
crossref pmid pmc
45. Liang YH, Kavishwar RA, Pedraza M, Setiawan DR, Kim JH, Kim JS. Hybrid endoscopic thoracic discectomy using robotic arm and navigation for highly migrated calcified disc herniation. Neurospine 2024;21:1126–30.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
46. Hur JW, Kim JS, Cho DY, Shin JM, Lee JH, Lee SH. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery under O-arm navigation system guidance for the treatment of thoracic disk herniations: surgical techniques and early clinical results. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2014;75:415–21.
crossref pmid
47. Lewandrowski KU, Dowling A, Calderaro AL, et al. Dysethesia due to irritation of the dorsal root ganglion following lumbar transforaminal endoscopy: analysis of frequency and contributing factors. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2020;197:106073.
crossref pmid
48. Kim HS, Kim JY, Wu PH, Jang IT. Effect of dorsal root ganglion retraction in endoscopic lumbar decompressive surgery for foraminal pathology: a retrospective cohort study of interlaminar contralateral endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy and discectomy versus transforaminal endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy and discectomy. World Neurosurg 2021;148:e101–14.
crossref pmid
49. Lee DH, Lee DG, Park CK, et al. Saving stabilizing structure treatment with bilateral-contralateral decompression for spinal stenosis in degenerative spondylolisthesis using unilateral biportal endoscopy. Neurospine 2023;20:931–9.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
50. Lee DH, Park CK, Jang JW, Lee DG. Safety and utility of bilateral-contralateral decompression for adjacent segment stenosis after lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral biportal endoscopy. Clin Spine Surg 2025 Mar 4 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001777
crossref pmid
51. Cuellar JM, Stauff MP, Herzog RJ, Carrino JA, Baker GA, Carragee EJ. Does provocative discography cause clinically important injury to the lumbar intervertebral disc?: a 10-year matched cohort study. Spine J 2016;16:273–80.
crossref pmid


ABOUT
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine
88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3010-3530    Fax: +82-2-3010-8555    E-mail: asianspinejournal@gmail.com                
Korean Society of Spine Surgery
27, Dongguk-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang-si 10326, Korea
Tel: +82-31-966-3413    Fax: +82-2-831-3414    E-mail: office@spine.or.kr                

Copyright © 2025 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next