Clinical Efficacy of Unilateral Dual‐channel Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis with Spinal Scoliosis

Objectives Scoliosis associated with spondylolisthesis is a common phenomenon. Recent research has reported that scoliosis can spontaneously disappear after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. Researchers have advocated that, for scoliosis associated with vertebral slippage, surgery for the latter may be the only necessary intervention, while unnecessary surgery for scoliosis should be avoided. So we propose that minimally invasive techniques can achieve treatment effects similar to those of open surgery. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of unilateral dual‐channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) for treating lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal scoliosis. Methods This study retrospectively analyzed patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis and spinal scoliosis who underwent ULIF between September 2021 and September 2023. Measurements of the Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis (LL) angle, sacral slope (SS), slip percentage (SP), slip angle (SA), L1 plumb line‐S1 distance (LASD), and average intervertebral height (AIH) were taken preoperatively, immediately following surgery, 3 months after surgery, and at the final follow‐up. The visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scoring systems were used to assess clinical results. The surgical efficacy was evaluated by comparing these parameters before and after surgery. Comparison of indicators within the same group was conducted using one‐way repeated‐measures analysis of variance or paired sample t‐tests, whereas between‐group differences were compared using an independent t‐test. Results This study included 31 individuals who underwent surgery and completed follow‐up. The follow‐up period did not show a significant loss of corrective angles. Furthermore, the Cobb angle, SP, SA, and LASD significantly decreased after surgery, whereas the LL angle, SS, and AIH significantly increased (all p 0.05). However, other parameters significantly improved during the follow‐up period at all time points, except from 3 months to the final follow‐up period (p > 0.05). Throughout the follow‐up period, the lower back and leg pain VAS, ODI, and JOA scores considerably improved compared with the preoperative levels (p