Daniel Berman

Study Design: Systematic review. Objective: To evaluate perioperative and clinical outcomes after open versus endoscopic lumbar decompression in patients with obesity. Summary of Background Data: Obesity is associated with increased technical difficulty and perioperative morbidity in lumbar spine surgery. Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) may reduce soft tissue disruption and wound morbidity, but comparative data in obese patients remain limited. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception through January 21, 2026. Studies were included if they enrolled adult patients with obesity undergoing lumbar decompression without fusion for degenerative pathology and reported at least one operative or perioperative outcome. Pediatric patients, nonlumbar or nondegenerative procedures, fusion-only cohorts, and nonprimary literature were excluded. Demographics, operative outcomes, complications, reoperation, and patient-reported outcomes were extracted and synthesized qualitatively. Results: Fourteen studies were included after screening 667 titles/abstracts and 93 full texts; 11 primary clinical studies informed the results synthesis. Two studies directly compared endoscopic and open decompression in obese patients. Ma and colleagues reported lower estimated blood loss after unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression compared with open surgery and shorter hospitalization. Castel and colleagues reported shorter hospitalization after full endoscopic lumbar discectomy compared with open surgery, although operative time was longer in the endoscopic cohort. Complications included surgical site infection, durotomy, nerve root injury, and recurrent disc herniation, with low event rates. BMI-stratified studies showed comparable pain and disability improvement between obese and nonobese patients. Conclusion: Based on limited comparative evidence from two studies, endoscopic decompression in obese patients was associated with similar clinical improvement and potential perioperative advantages compared with open surgery, including lower reported blood loss and shorter length of stay. Limitations include retrospective designs, heterogeneous techniques, only two comparative studies, and inconsistent reporting. These findings should be considered preliminary, and prospective comparative studies are needed. Level of Evidence: Level III.

Pedicle screw fixation is a technique used to provide rigid fixation in thoracolumbar spine surgery. Safe intraosseous placement of pedicle screws is necessary to provide optimal fixation as well as to avoid damage to adjacent anatomic structures. Despite the wide variety of techniques available, none thus far has been able to fully eliminate the risk of malpositioned screws. Intraoperative 3-dimensional navigation (I3DN) was developed to improve accuracy in the placement of pedicle screws. To our knowledge, no previous studies have investigated whether infection rates are higher with I3DN. A single-institution, retrospective study of patients age > 18 undergoing thoracolumbar fusion and instrumentation was carried out and use of I3DN was recorded. The I3DN group had a significantly greater rate of return to the operating room for culture-positive incision and drainage (17 (4.1%) vs. 1 (0.6%), p = 0.025). In multivariate analysis, the use of I3DM did not reach significance with an OR of 6.49 (0.84–50.02, p = 0.073). Post-operative infections are multifactorial and potential infection risks associated with I3DN need to be weighed against the safety benefits of improved accuracy of pedicle screw positioning.