BESS-TLIF in patients who previously underwent discectomy or decompression on the same side
At the previous partial laminectomy site, scar tissue is formed and adheres to the dura and bone. If surgery is performed without appropriate dissection of this area, iatrogenic dural tears or nerve injury may occur, requiring appropriate soft tissue handling.
Portal making
The level of each pedicle is checked using a C-arm image intensifier, and a vertical incision of approximately 1.5 cm is made just lateral to the pedicle (
Fig. 1). In this technique, total facetectomy, decompression, and cage insertion are performed through an incision into which a pedicle screw is inserted. To allow for ideal pedicle screw insertion, each pedicle must be tilted and marked in a true view on the C-arm image intensifier.
Soft tissue preparation with adhesiolysis
If partial laminectomy was performed previously, damage to the nerve tissue must be avoided because severe adherence of the scar tissue, bone, and dura exists. Initially, a blunt instrument is used to peel the soft tissue over the facet joint and lamina. Adherent scar tissue does not peel off easily. However, to prevent damaging the nerve tissue, the work must be done above the bone under the guidance of a C-arm image intensifier (
Fig. 2A, B). Subsequently, a blunt instrument is used to palpate and confirm the safe area made of bone. Then, the scar tissue is cut using a surgical blade above the bone in the safe area (
Figs. 2C, D, and
3A). Furthermore, the superficial scar tissue adhering to the dura is detached from bone, and the margin of the remaining bone is checked. The scar tissue is carefully peeled off from the bone margin to access the epidural space; however, if this is challenging, a little more bone is removed using a burr or Kerrison punch to secure a space (
Fig. 3B). When the space leading to the epidural space is confirmed, adhesiolysis is performed to separate the scar tissue and bone carefully (
Figs. 2E,
3C). Then, the scar tissue is removed up to the area where facetectomy will be performed to prevent the dura from being torn apart by the scar tissue when removing the inferior articular process (IAP) (
Fig. 2F).
Facetectomy
The IAP of the upper vertebra is excised using an osteotome to the area where scar tissue dissection was performed, starting from just above the tip of the superior articular process (SAP) of the lower vertebra (
Fig. 2F). When the medial margin of SAP is exposed, the dura lateral margin and bone are carefully separated using a blunt-tipped probe. After palpating the lower pedicle using a probe bent at 90°, facetectomy is performed by removing the SAP using an osteotome in the cranial area of the upper margin of the pedicle.
Disc preparation, cage insertion, and percutaneous instrumentation
If Kamabin’s triangle is found after facetectomy, a retractor is used to protect the traversing root without damaging the exiting root, and an annulotomy is performed using a blade. The retractor plays a role in securing visibility and protecting the root during disc preparation. After the disc has been sufficiently removed, an endoscope can be used to check whether the bony endplate has been sufficiently exposed. After disc space preparation, the cage is inserted by either inserting two cages or inserting one large cage. Then, the surgery is completed by inserting the pedicle screw and connecting the rod using the percutaneous technique.
Discussion
Performing surgery on patients who have undergone surgery often presents significant challenges for surgeons. These difficulties arise from the changes in the anatomical structure and the presence of dense scar tissue that strongly adheres to surrounding areas. Scar tissue, particularly when involving nerve structures, increases the risk of nerve damage intraoperatively. Consequently, the procedure often takes longer and may not be completed. To manage these complexities effectively, surgeons must have substantial experience and follow precise surgical principles while handling tissues with care. One of the most notable advantages of BESS is its superior visualization. Placing the endoscope in direct proximity to the target tissues offers a magnified and detailed view. The continuous flow of water not only removes debris and minor bleeding but also displaces the dura mater, creating an extra workspace without using suction devices that might obstruct the view. This setup allows surgeons to easily distinguish normal tissues, such as pinkish muscles and ligaments that exhibit a clear fiber orientation, from scar tissue, which appears pale and lacks any identifiable fiber structure. This improved visual clarity ensures that the surgery can be performed safely and accurately.
The scope of the application of BESS is gradually expanding. Studies have reported cases being treated with endoscopy in areas or conditions that were previously considered contraindications to endoscopic surgery. Kim et al. [
5] reported treatments using BESS for various thoracic spine diseases. In addition, a study reported its application in the treatment of infectious diseases and tumors, which were previously considered contraindications of BESS [
6–
8]. Surgical applications using BESS also extend to revision surgeries. Kim et al. [
4] reported on the use of BESS for treating recurrent disc herniation. In spine surgery, revision procedures can be particularly challenging because of adhesions caused by scar tissue and deviations from normal anatomical structures. However, the improved visualization provided by endoscopy allows for more precise and cautious handling of soft tissue, reducing the risk of nerve damage [
4]. These advantages enable BESS to be effectively utilized in spine revision surgeries.
The advancement of spinal fusion techniques has greatly enhanced patient outcomes in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disorders. Since its introduction by Harms and Jeszenszky [
9], TLIF has gained widespread popularity. Initially, early TLIF involved exposing all posterior elements and resecting the facet joint [
10]. With the introduction of tubular retractors and percutaneous pedicle screw insertion, the procedure evolved into minimally invasive spine surgery (MIS)-TLIF, with reduced incidence of associated surgical morbidity [
11]. As BESS became more widely accepted, its benefits were increasingly recognized, which led to the adoption of BESS for TLIF [
12]. The emergence of BESS-TLIF marks a significant step forward in MIS, offering advantages over traditional MIS-TLIF, such as less postoperative pain, faster recovery, and shorter hospital stays [
3].
In surgeries for adjacent segment pathology, no clear consensus has been established on whether to extend fusion using existing implants or remove them entirely, as this decision is often dependent on the surgeon’s preference. In revision surgeries, implant removal generally requires a longer incision, leading to significant blood loss and extended operative time [
13,
14]. However, as described in this study, BESS allows implant removal with minimal incision and reduced blood loss. A study reported that when only posterolateral fusion is performed without interbody fusion, maintaining the existing implant and extending the fusion can reduce the risk of mechanical complications compared with that when the implant is removed [
15]. Therefore, implant removal should be performed when interbody fusion has been performed, and union was confirmed on CT. Otherwise, fusion extension, including the previous surgical level, is necessary. As described in case 3, in situations where stability must be maintained because of nonunion or instability at the previous surgical site, existing screws can be removed, and new pedicle screws can be inserted, with fusion-level extension achieved through the same incision.
This technical note focuses on the application of BESS-TLIF in revision spine surgery, and several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the techniques and outcomes described herein are based on limited case presentations, which may not be generalizable to all patients or surgical scenarios. Second, long-term follow-up data are nonexistent to evaluate the durability of BESS-TLIF in revision settings, particularly concerning adjacent segment degeneration and implant-related complications. Finally, surgical outcomes may be significantly dependent on the surgeon’s proficiency with BESS, which could limit its wider adoption. Further multicenter studies with larger sample sizes and extended follow-up periods are necessary to validate these findings.
In conclusion, BESS-TLIF represents a promising approach for revision spine surgery, offering the advantages of minimal soft tissue damage, reduced blood loss, and shorter hospital stays. This study demonstrates the utility of the technique in challenging cases, including those with significant scar tissue adhesions and ASD. As BESS is advancing, its role in complex spinal surgeries is expected to expand, potentially setting new standards in MIS. More studies are needed to establish long-term outcomes and refine surgical protocols, ensuring broader accessibility and safety for diverse patient populations.
Key Points
Biportal endoscopic spine surgery-transforaminal lumbar inter body fusion (BESS-TLIF) is an effective and minimally invasive approach for revision spine surgery, addressing challenges like scar tissue adhesion, altered anatomy, and implant removal.
The endoscopic technique offers superior visualization, enabling precise dissection and adhesiolysis, reducing the risk of dural tears and nerve injury in revision cases.
BESS-TLIF can be effectively applied to adjacent segment disease cases following prior fusion, allowing fusion extension with minimal soft tissue disruption and blood loss.
This study highlights the expanding role of BESS beyond simple decompression, demonstrating its feasibility in complex revision cases, potentially setting new standards in minimally invasive spine surgery.