{"title":"腰椎退行性病变单侧双ortal 内窥镜与传统手术的疗效比较","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":"{\"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}","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}
Comparative Efficacy of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy vs Traditional Surgery in Lumbar Degenerative Disorders.
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.
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.