Surgical Outcomes of Microscopic versus Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Preliminary Report

Lee, Jun Hong; Cho, Sung Ik; Chough, Chung Kee

doi:10.51638/jksgn.20.00297

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 386 related documents were obtained through a preliminary search. Eleven articles were ultimately included [15,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] (Fig. 1, Table 1) after rescreening by eliminating duplicate documents, reading titles and abstracts, and full text.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1, Table 1) after rescreening by eliminating duplicate documents, reading titles and abstracts, and full text. There were 10 articles in English [15,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]30] and one article in Chinese [29]. There were 930 patients, including 449 patients in UBE and 521 in MD.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2). The remaining nine studies were nonrandomized controlled trials [15,[21][22][23][24][25][28][29][30]. Risk assessment was conducted according to the RoBANS guidelines.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eleven articles were included, with 449 patients in the UBE group and 521 in the MD group [15,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. The heterogeneity analysis showed that heterogeneity was not obvious (I 2 =0%).…”

Section: Postoperative Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Decompression and Microscopic Decompression Effectiveness in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Li¹,

Jiheng²,

et al. 2023

Asian Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique and microscopic decompression (MD) technique in lumbar spinal stenosis treatment. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and other databases were used to conduct extensive literature searches. RevMan ver. 5.3 software was used for the statistical analysis. Eleven studies were included with 930 patients, including 449 patients in the UBE group and 521 in the MD group. Both techniques revealed similar operative times at −1.77 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], −7.59 to 4.05 minutes; p=0.55), the postoperative dural expansion area at −1.27 (95% CI, −19.30 to 16.77; p=0.89), the postoperative complications at 0.76 (95% CI, 0.47 to 1.22; p=0.26), the preoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for leg pain, and the last follow-up (>12 months) VAS for leg pain at −0.04 (95% CI, −0.14 to 0.06; p=0.47), the preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the last follow-up (>12 months) ODI scores at −0.18 (95% CI, −0.76 to 0.40; p=0.54), and patient satisfaction (the modified MacNab score) at 1.15 (95% CI, 0.54 to 2.42; p=0.72). However, intraoperative bleeding was lower following the UBE technique at −52.78 mL (95% CI, −93.47 to −12.08 mL; p=0.01) and was shorter following the UBE technique at −3.06 (95% CI, −3.84 to −2.28; p<0.01). UBE and MD technology have no significant differences in efficacy or safety in the treatment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis based on this meta-analysis. However, the UBE technique has less intraoperative bleeding and a shorter hospital stay. It has a slight advantage and is a better surgical option than the MD technique. It can be an alternative minimally invasive spinal surgery method.

show abstract

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2). The remaining nine studies were nonrandomized controlled trials [15,[21][22][23][24][25][28][29][30]. Risk assessment was conducted according to the RoBANS guidelines.…”

Section: Study Characteristics and Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%