Comparing the efficacy and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopic fusion versus minimally invasive fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and mate-analysis

Wang, Qian; Chang, Shuai; Dong, Jun-Feng; Xu, Fei; Chen, Yang; Zhuo, Can

doi:10.1007/s00586-023-07588-6

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since it was first reported in 1996, UBE has been widely used for lumbar diseases to overcome the lack of endoscopic surgical instruments. 23 , 24 As a minimally invasive spinal surgery, UBE is technically similar to PTED in the use of endoscopy and similar to open laminotomy in the anatomic structure. 25 Therefore, the learning curve of UBE is no longer steep for surgeons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Study of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression and Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Decompression for Geriatric Patients with Lumbar Lateral Recess Stenosis

Cheng,

Wu,

Chen

et al. 2023

JPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this research was to compare the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (UBE) and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression (PTED) in the treatment of elderly patients with single-level lumbar lateral recess stenosis (LRS). Materials and Methods Data from January 2020 to March 2022 were analyzed. Thirty-eight patients in the PTED group and thirty-nine patients in the UBE group completed the minimum 12-month follow-up. The demographic data and perioperative outcomes were reviewed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the VAS for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the modified MacNab criteria. Results Both groups of patients completed surgery and a one-year follow-up. There was no significant difference between the two groups in demographics data. UBE has the advantage in operative duration and X-ray time; as far as incision length, blood loss, and drainage volume are concerned, PTED is advantageous. Under the modified MacNab criteria, UBE exhibited a good-to-excellent rate similar to that of PTED (84.6% vs 81.6%, P>0.05). There were no significant differences at any point in time between UBE and PTED with respect to ODI, VAS, or back pain scores (P>0.05). UBE and PTED did not differ significantly in terms of complications. Conclusion Both PTED and UBE achieved favorable outcomes in single-level LRS. For operative time and X-ray times, UBE is more advantageous, while PTED offers better estimates of blood loss, incision length, and drainage volume.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%