Evidence Hub

Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Foraminotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

E. Giordan, D. Billeci, Jacopo Del Verme, G. Varrassi, F. Coluzzi

Pain and Therapy, 2021

600 participants · 36 citations

Abstract

Spinal endoscopic techniques have recently been applied to complex degenerative conditions or failed back surgery syndrome. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess transforaminal endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (TELF) outcomes and adverse event rates. We also analyzed the effectiveness of the technique for chronic pain after arthrodesis or previous spinal surgery. Multiple databases were searched for studies published in the English language, involving patients > 18 years old who underwent endoscopic foraminotomy. Outcomes included the rate of patients who showed “excellent” and “good” postoperative improvement, decreased leg pain, and improved Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Adverse events considered in the analysis included nerve root damage and intraoperative dural tear, the proportion of patients requiring revision surgery or recurrences, and infections. A total of 14 studies, encompassing 600 patients, were identified. Approximately 85% of patients improved significantly after TELF, without significant differences among different groups (85% vs. 78%, respectively). Mean leg pain decreased an average of 5.2 points, and ODI scores improved by 41.2%. Patients with previous spine surgery or failed back surgery syndrome had higher postoperative leg dysesthesia rates after TELF (14% vs. 1%, respectively). TELF is a useful and safe method to achieve decompression in foraminal stenosis. This technique is indicated in the elderly or patients with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 600 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free