Objective To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique with the interlaminar uniportal endoscopy (IUE) technique for the treatment of L5, S1 lumbar disc herniation. MethodsThe clinical data of 69 patients with L5, S1 lumbar disc herniation who met the selection criteria between January 2020 and December 2020 were retrospectively analysed. The patients were divided into UBE group (30 cases) and IUE group (39 cases) according to endoscopic surgical technique. The general data, such as gender, age, body mass index, disease duration, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back/leg pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI), was not significantly different between the two groups (P>0.05). Perioperative outcomes [estimated blood loss (EBL), total operation time, extracanal operation time, intracanal decompression time, intraoperative radiation exposure dose, incision length, operative related complications, and postoperative hospitalization stay] and clinical outcomes (VAS score of low back/leg pain before operation and at 3 days, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation as well as the ODI before operation and at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation) were recorded and compared between the two groups. ResultsAll patients completed the surgery successfully. The incision length, EBL, and extracanal operation time in UBE group were significantly longer than those in IUE group (P<0.05), and the intracanal decompression time in UBE group was significantly shorter than that in IUE group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the total operation time, intraoperative radiation exposure dose, and postoperative hospitalization stay between the two groups (P>0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up 12-15 months (mean, 13.3 months). Dural tear ocurred in 1 patient of the UBE group, and recurrence ocurred in 1 patient of the IUE group, the others of both groups had no surgery-related complications and recovered well after operation. The VAS scores of low back/leg pain and ODI in both groups at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS scores and ODI at each time point after operation between two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionThe effectiveness of UBE technique in the treatment of L5, S1 lumbar disc herniation is similar to that of IUE technique, and the efficiency of intraspinal operation is better than that of IUE technique. Although UBE technique is inferior to IUE technique in terms of surgical trauma, there is no significant difference in postoperative recovery between the two techniques.
Objective To analyze the perioperative efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation using unilateral biportal endoscopy technique. Methods A total of 55 patients who received unilateral biportal endoscopy technique for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation in Tianjin Hospital between January and December 2020 were selected and randomly divided into the traditional group and the ERAS group according to random number table method. The routine inpatient care management was adopted in the traditional group, while the holistic integrated care plan was formulated in the ERAS group according to the multidisciplinary collaboration of the accelerated rehabilitation plan. The first postoperative exhaust time, the first time out of bed, length of hospital stay, hospital costs, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores before operation, one day and three days after operation, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores before operation and one month after operation, and the excellent and good rate of modified MacNab efficacy one month after operation were compared between the two groups. Results There were 28 cases in the traditional group and 27 cases in the ERAS group. The first postoperative exhaust time [(2.31±1.02) vs. (3.19±0.87) h], the first postoperative ambulation time [(1.06±0.40) vs. (2.00±0.53) d], length of hospital stay [(3.8±0.8) vs. (4.6±0.8) d], and hospital cost [(32.18±9.10) thousand yuan vs. (39.81±11.10) thousand yuan] in the ERAS group were all less than those in the traditional group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The VAS scores of the ERAS group one day after operation (3.2±0.8 vs. 4.1±0.8) and three days after operation (1.4±0.5 vs. 1.7±0.5) were lower than those of the traditional group (P<0.05). The ODI scores of the ERAS group one month after operation was lower than that of the traditional group (13.3±4.0 vs. 16.6±4.8, P<0.05). In the modified MacNab efficacy evaluation one month after surgery, there was no significant difference in the excellent and good rate between the ERAS group and the traditional group (96.3% vs. 96.4%, P>0.05). Conclusions ERAS regimen can significantly accelerate the patients’ recovery, including shortening the first exhaust time, facilitating early ambulation, and reducing the hospital stay and hospitalization expenses. Meanwhile, ERAS regimen can effectively reduce the postoperative pain of the patients, and promote early functional recovery.
Objective To review the application and progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods The domestic and foreign literature on the application of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of LSS was extensively reviewed, and the advantages, disadvantages, and complications of different surgical methods were summarized. ResultsAt present, minimally invasive spinal decompression mainly includes microscopic bilateral decompression, microendoscopic decompression, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression, unilateral biportal endoscopy, and so on. Compared with traditional open surgery, different minimally invasive spinal decompression techniques can reduce the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain of patients, thereby reducing hospital stay and saving treatment costs. Conclusion The indications of different minimally invasive spinal decompression are different, but there are certain advantages and disadvantages. When patients have clear surgical indications, individualized treatment plans should be formulated according to the symptoms and signs of patients, combined with imaging manifestations.
Objective To compare the effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation. Methods A clinical data of 64 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and intervertebral disc herniation, who were admitted between April 2020 and November 2021 and met the selection criteria, was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 30 patients were treated with ULIF (ULIF group) and 34 patients with Endo-TLIF (Endo-TLIF group). There was no significant difference in baseline data such as gender, age, disease duration, lesion segment, preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), spinal canal area, and intervertebral space height between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stays, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups, as well as the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, ODI, and imaging measurement indicators (spinal canal area, intervertebral bone graft area, intervertebral space height, and degree of intervertebral fusion according to modified Brantigan score). Results Compared with the Endo-TLIF group, the ULIF group had shorter operation time, but had more intraoperative blood loss and longer hospital stays, with significant differences (P<0.05). The cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in 2 cases of Endo-TLIF group and 1 case of ULIF group, and no other complication occurred. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients in the two groups were followed up 12 months. The VAS scores of lower back pain and leg pain and ODI in the two groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between different time points after operation (P>0.05). And there was no significant difference between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the change of spinal canal area, the change of intervertebral space height, and intervertebral fusion rate at 6 and 12 months (P>0.05). The intervertebral bone graft area in the ULIF group was significantly larger than that in the Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05). ConclusionFor the patients with lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation, ULIF not only achieves similar effectiveness as Endo-TLIF, but also has advantages such as higher decompression efficiency, flexible surgical instrument operation, more thorough intraoperative intervertebral space management, and shorter operation time.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) in the treatment of degreeⅠdegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). MethodsA clinical data of 58 patients with degreeⅠDLS who met the selection criteria between October 2021 and October 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 28 cases were treated with unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (decompression group) and 30 cases with ULIF (ULIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05) in the gender, age, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), disk height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and other baseline data. The operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative ambulation time, VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, ODI, laboratory examination indexes (CRP, ESR), and imaging parameters (DH, SL) were compared between the two groups. ResultsCompared with the ULIF group, the decompression group had shorter operation time, less postoperative drainage, and earlier ambulation (P<0.05). All incisions healed by first intention, and no complication such as nerve root injury, epidural hematoma, or infection occurred. All patients were followed up 12 months. Laboratory tests showed that ESR and CRP at 3 days after operation in decompression group were not significantly different from those before operation (P>0.05), while the above indexes in ULIF group significantly increased at 3 days after operation compared to preoperative values (P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of ESR and CRP before and after operation between the two groups (P<0.05). Except that the VAS score of low back pain at 3 days after operation was not significantly different from that before operation in decompression group (P>0.05), there were significant differences in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points (P<0.05). The VAS score of low back pain in ULIF group was significantly higher than that in decompression group at 3 days after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). The ODI of the two groups significantly improved after operation (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between 3 days and 6 months after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at the two time points after operation (P<0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in DH and SL between pre-operation and 12 months after operation in decompression group (P>0.05). However, the above two indexes in ULIF group were significantly higher than those before operation (P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of DH and SL before and after operation between the two groups (P<0.05). ConclusionUnilateral biportal endoscopic decompression can achieve good effectiveness in the treatment of degree Ⅰ DLS. Compared with ULIF, it can shorten operation time, reduce postoperative drainage volume, promote early ambulation, reduce inflammatory reaction, and accelerate postoperative recovery. ULIF has more advantages in restoring intervertebral DH and SL.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness between unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (ULBD) with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and uniportal interlaminar endoscopy (UIE) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods A clinical data of 52 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, who met the selection criteria and treated with ULBD between March 2021 and November 2022, was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were allocated into UBE group (23 cases) and UIE group (29 cases) according to the surgical methods. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in age, gender, body mass index, surgical segment, type of lumbar stenosis, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), disc height, and dural sac area between the two groups. Perioperative indexes (incision length, operation time, hospital stay, and surgical complications), clinical indicators (VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, and ODI before operation and at 3 days, 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months after operation), and imaging indicators (disc height and dural sac area before operation and at 1, 12 months after operation, and dural sac expansion area) were recorded and compared between the two group. Results All operations in both groups were successfully completed. Compared with the UIE group, the UBE group had shorter operation time and longer incision length, with significant differences (P<0.05). But there was no significant difference in hospital stay and incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12-20 months (mean, 14 months). The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI after operation significantly improved when compared with preoperative values (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the above indicators between different time points after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at different time points (P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in disc height between the two groups at different time points after operation (P>0.05). However, the dural sac area and dural sac expansion area were significantly larger in the UBE group than in the UIE group (P<0.05). Conclusion ULBD with UBE and UIE can achieve satisfactory effectiveness in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. But the former has more thorough decompression and better dural sac expansion than the latter.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods Between November 2019 and May 2023, a total of 81 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria were enrolled. They were randomly divided into UBE-TLIF group (39 cases) and Endo-TLIF group (42 cases). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (P>0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and serum markers including creatine kinase (CK) and C reactive protein (CRP). Total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss (HBL), postoperative drainage volume, and operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Serum markers (CK, CRP) levels were compared between the two groups at 1 day before operation and 1, 3, and 5 days after operation. Furthermore, the VAS scores for low back and leg pain, and ODI at 1 day before operation and 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation, and intervertebral fusion rate at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups. Results All surgeries were completed successfully without occurrence of incision infection, vascular or nerve injury, epidural hematoma, dural tear, or postoperative paraplegia. The operation time in UBE-TLIF group was significantly shorter than that in Endo-TLIF group, but the intraoperative blood loss, TBL, and HBL in UBE-TLIF group were significantly more than those in Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between the two groups (P>0.05). The levels of CK at 1 day and 3 days after operation and CRP at 1, 3, and 5 days after operation in UBE-TLIF group were slightly higher than those in the Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the levels of CK and CPR between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12 months. VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation in the two groups (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups at 12 months after operation (P>0.05). ConclusionUBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF are both effective methods for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, compared to Endo-TLIF, UBE-TLIF requires further improvement in minimally invasive techniques to reduce tissue trauma and blood loss.