Comparative Efficacy of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy vs Traditional Surgery in Lumbar Degenerative Disorders.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 Medicine
Zi-Kun Liao, Shu-Yang Xia, Qun Li, Wei Zhou, Ping Zhang
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy vs Traditional Surgery in Lumbar Degenerative Disorders.","authors":"Zi-Kun Liao, Shu-Yang Xia, Qun Li, Wei Zhou, Ping Zhang","doi":"10.12659/MSM.946468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND Lumbar degenerative diseases, such as lumbar disc herniation, cause significant pain and neurological deficits. Traditional surgeries like posteriior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) have drawbacks, including extensive tissue damage. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) compared with PLIF, with a focus on clinical outcomes and complication rates. MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective study (January 2020 to January 2023) included 109 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases; 53 treated with UBE and 56 with PLIF. We followed Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines with ethical approval. The statistical analyses used t-tests and Chi-square tests (P<0.05). RESULTS The UBE group showed significantly shorter surgery times (107.3±11.2 minutes) and less intraoperative blood loss (50.2±5.7 mL) compared with the PLIF group (113.5±15.7 minutes; 91.3±9.0 mL). Postoperative pain reduction was greater in the UBE group, with a mean Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score of 3.50±0.85 vs 4.10±0.95 in the PLIF group (P<0.001). The UBE group also had better lumbar function recovery, with higher Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores (19.80±2.30 vs 17.20±2.05; P<0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was lower in the UBE group (5.67%) compared with the PLIF group (14.29%), although this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.14). CONCLUSIONS UBE could offer significant clinical efficacy in treating lumbar degenerative diseases. It may improve surgical outcomes, reduce postoperative pain, and present a favorable safety profile. These findings suggest UBE might be a viable, minimally invasive option, promoting better recovery and fewer complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":48888,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Monitor","volume":"30 ","pages":"e946468"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Science Monitor","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.946468","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Lumbar degenerative diseases, such as lumbar disc herniation, cause significant pain and neurological deficits. Traditional surgeries like posteriior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) have drawbacks, including extensive tissue damage. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) compared with PLIF, with a focus on clinical outcomes and complication rates. MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective study (January 2020 to January 2023) included 109 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases; 53 treated with UBE and 56 with PLIF. We followed Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines with ethical approval. The statistical analyses used t-tests and Chi-square tests (P<0.05). RESULTS The UBE group showed significantly shorter surgery times (107.3±11.2 minutes) and less intraoperative blood loss (50.2±5.7 mL) compared with the PLIF group (113.5±15.7 minutes; 91.3±9.0 mL). Postoperative pain reduction was greater in the UBE group, with a mean Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score of 3.50±0.85 vs 4.10±0.95 in the PLIF group (P<0.001). The UBE group also had better lumbar function recovery, with higher Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores (19.80±2.30 vs 17.20±2.05; P<0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was lower in the UBE group (5.67%) compared with the PLIF group (14.29%), although this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.14). CONCLUSIONS UBE could offer significant clinical efficacy in treating lumbar degenerative diseases. It may improve surgical outcomes, reduce postoperative pain, and present a favorable safety profile. These findings suggest UBE might be a viable, minimally invasive option, promoting better recovery and fewer complications.

腰椎退行性病变单侧双ortal 内窥镜与传统手术的疗效比较
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Science Monitor
Medical Science Monitor MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
514
审稿时长
3.0 months
期刊介绍: Medical Science Monitor (MSM) established in 1995 is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal which publishes original articles in Clinical Medicine and related disciplines such as Epidemiology and Population Studies, Product Investigations, Development of Laboratory Techniques :: Diagnostics and Medical Technology which enable presentation of research or review works in overlapping areas of medicine and technology such us (but not limited to): medical diagnostics, medical imaging systems, computer simulation of health and disease processes, new medical devices, etc. Reviews and Special Reports - papers may be accepted on the basis that they provide a systematic, critical and up-to-date overview of literature pertaining to research or clinical topics. Meta-analyses are considered as reviews. A special attention will be paid to a teaching value of a review paper. Medical Science Monitor is internationally indexed in Thomson-Reuters Web of Science, Journals Citation Report (JCR), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI), Index Medicus MEDLINE, PubMed, PMC, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Chemical Abstracts CAS and Index Copernicus.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信