Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared With Conventional Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion on the Treatment of Single-segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Instability, a 2-year Follow-up Study.
{"title":"Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared With Conventional Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion on the Treatment of Single-segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Instability, a 2-year Follow-up Study.","authors":"Heqing Zhang, Chengyan Dong, Jingjie Wang, Ding Yan, Leisheng Wang, Xiaoguang Fan","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the clinical and radiologic outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) for single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis with instability.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Unilateral biportal endoscopic technology has developed rapidly, and ULIF is a new type of minimally invasive fusion surgery. However, there remains a lack of sufficient evidence regarding its clinical efficacy. By comparing it with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery, its clinical efficacy can be evaluated.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In total, 110 (ULIF group, 54; PLIF group, 56) patients were included. Perioperative indicators were compared between the groups. Clinical efficacy, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index scores were compared. Surgical complications, intraoperative dural tears, nerve root injury, surgical hematoma, and reoperation were assessed. The postoperative clinical test indicators were white blood cell count and C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and interleukin-6 levels. Imaging results, cage loosening, screw loosening, and intervertebral fusion rate were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The surgical time was significantly longer in the ULIF group than in the PLIF group. The postoperative ambulation time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative drainage volume were shorter in the ULIF group than in the PLIF group. There were no differences in the VAS scores for leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index scores, but there were statistically significant differences in the VAS scores for low back pain between the groups. The white blood cell count and C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and interleukin-6 levels were significantly lower in the ULIF group than in the PLIF group. None of the patients showed any loosening of the fusion cage or any loosening or breakage of the screws. There was no difference in the lumbar interbody fusion rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ULIF has several advantages, but its surgical time is significantly prolonged.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001781","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Study design: Retrospective cohort study.
Objective: To investigate the clinical and radiologic outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) for single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis with instability.
Background: Unilateral biportal endoscopic technology has developed rapidly, and ULIF is a new type of minimally invasive fusion surgery. However, there remains a lack of sufficient evidence regarding its clinical efficacy. By comparing it with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery, its clinical efficacy can be evaluated.
Materials and methods: In total, 110 (ULIF group, 54; PLIF group, 56) patients were included. Perioperative indicators were compared between the groups. Clinical efficacy, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index scores were compared. Surgical complications, intraoperative dural tears, nerve root injury, surgical hematoma, and reoperation were assessed. The postoperative clinical test indicators were white blood cell count and C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and interleukin-6 levels. Imaging results, cage loosening, screw loosening, and intervertebral fusion rate were evaluated.
Results: The surgical time was significantly longer in the ULIF group than in the PLIF group. The postoperative ambulation time, length of hospital stay, and postoperative drainage volume were shorter in the ULIF group than in the PLIF group. There were no differences in the VAS scores for leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index scores, but there were statistically significant differences in the VAS scores for low back pain between the groups. The white blood cell count and C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and interleukin-6 levels were significantly lower in the ULIF group than in the PLIF group. None of the patients showed any loosening of the fusion cage or any loosening or breakage of the screws. There was no difference in the lumbar interbody fusion rate.
Conclusions: ULIF has several advantages, but its surgical time is significantly prolonged.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure.
Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
