双门静脉内窥镜与传统开放脊柱手术治疗腰椎退行性疾病:系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 2.7 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Alexander Yu, Mark Kurapatti, Ryan Hoang, Charu Jain, Gray William Ricca, Junho Song, Joshua Lee, Daniel Berman, Samuel Kang-Wook Cho
{"title":"双门静脉内窥镜与传统开放脊柱手术治疗腰椎退行性疾病:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Alexander Yu, Mark Kurapatti, Ryan Hoang, Charu Jain, Gray William Ricca, Junho Song, Joshua Lee, Daniel Berman, Samuel Kang-Wook Cho","doi":"10.31616/asj.2025.0063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study was the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes between conventional open surgery and biportal endoscopy for decompression and fusion of lumbar degenerative disease. Although conventional open spine surgery has been the standard approach for decades, biportal endoscopy has gained attention as a minimally invasive alternative with potential surgical outcome benefits. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis including eight comparative studies on open and biportal endoscopic spine surgery. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified studies that reported outcomes, such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, complication rates, operative time, and hospital stay. Data were analyzed using a random effects model to evaluate the effect size between the two approaches. We analyzed 414 open and 383 biportal endoscopic lumbar surgical procedures. The open group had a mean age of 61.0 years and comprised 42.0% men, whereas the biportal group had a mean age of 59.8 years and comprised 46.7% men. Compared with open spine surgery, biportal surgery was associated with a significantly longer operative time but shorter length of hospital stay and similar preoperative VAS scores, ODI score, and postoperative outcomes at <1 month and >1 year. Fusion subgroup analysis showed significantly lower VAS score for back pain with biportal surgery than with open surgery, but the other measures were comparable. Despite its longer operative time, biportal endoscopy led to shorter hospital stay and similar long-term pain and disability outcomes, compared with open spine surgery. Given the significant improvement in short-term leg pain relief after fusion procedures, biportal endoscopic spine surgery is a potential minimally invasive alternative to open surgery that warrants further study.</p>","PeriodicalId":8555,"journal":{"name":"Asian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biportal endoscopic versus conventional open spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Yu, Mark Kurapatti, Ryan Hoang, Charu Jain, Gray William Ricca, Junho Song, Joshua Lee, Daniel Berman, Samuel Kang-Wook Cho\",\"doi\":\"10.31616/asj.2025.0063\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study was the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes between conventional open surgery and biportal endoscopy for decompression and fusion of lumbar degenerative disease. Although conventional open spine surgery has been the standard approach for decades, biportal endoscopy has gained attention as a minimally invasive alternative with potential surgical outcome benefits. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis including eight comparative studies on open and biportal endoscopic spine surgery. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified studies that reported outcomes, such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, complication rates, operative time, and hospital stay. Data were analyzed using a random effects model to evaluate the effect size between the two approaches. We analyzed 414 open and 383 biportal endoscopic lumbar surgical procedures. The open group had a mean age of 61.0 years and comprised 42.0% men, whereas the biportal group had a mean age of 59.8 years and comprised 46.7% men. Compared with open spine surgery, biportal surgery was associated with a significantly longer operative time but shorter length of hospital stay and similar preoperative VAS scores, ODI score, and postoperative outcomes at <1 month and >1 year. Fusion subgroup analysis showed significantly lower VAS score for back pain with biportal surgery than with open surgery, but the other measures were comparable. Despite its longer operative time, biportal endoscopy led to shorter hospital stay and similar long-term pain and disability outcomes, compared with open spine surgery. Given the significant improvement in short-term leg pain relief after fusion procedures, biportal endoscopic spine surgery is a potential minimally invasive alternative to open surgery that warrants further study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2025.0063\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2025.0063","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究首次对传统开放手术和双门静脉内窥镜治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床结果进行了综合系统评价和荟萃分析。虽然几十年来传统的开放脊柱手术一直是标准方法,但双门静脉内窥镜检查作为一种具有潜在手术效果的微创替代方法已经引起了人们的关注。根据PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南,我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,包括8项关于开放和双门静脉内窥镜脊柱手术的比较研究。对PubMed、Embase和Scopus进行全面搜索,发现了报告结果的研究,如Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)、背部和腿部疼痛的视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、并发症发生率、手术时间和住院时间。使用随机效应模型分析数据,以评估两种方法之间的效应大小。我们分析了414例开放式和383例双门静脉内窥镜腰椎手术。开放组平均年龄61.0岁,男性占42.0%;双门静脉组平均年龄59.8岁,男性占46.7%。与开放脊柱手术相比,双门静脉手术的手术时间更长,住院时间更短,且术前VAS评分、ODI评分和术后1年预后相似。融合亚组分析显示,双门静脉手术腰痛的VAS评分明显低于开放手术,但其他指标具有可比性。尽管手术时间较长,但与开放脊柱手术相比,双门静脉内窥镜手术的住院时间较短,长期疼痛和残疾的结果相似。鉴于融合术后短期腿部疼痛缓解的显著改善,双门静脉内窥镜脊柱手术是一种潜在的微创手术,值得进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Biportal endoscopic versus conventional open spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.

This study was the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes between conventional open surgery and biportal endoscopy for decompression and fusion of lumbar degenerative disease. Although conventional open spine surgery has been the standard approach for decades, biportal endoscopy has gained attention as a minimally invasive alternative with potential surgical outcome benefits. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis including eight comparative studies on open and biportal endoscopic spine surgery. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified studies that reported outcomes, such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, complication rates, operative time, and hospital stay. Data were analyzed using a random effects model to evaluate the effect size between the two approaches. We analyzed 414 open and 383 biportal endoscopic lumbar surgical procedures. The open group had a mean age of 61.0 years and comprised 42.0% men, whereas the biportal group had a mean age of 59.8 years and comprised 46.7% men. Compared with open spine surgery, biportal surgery was associated with a significantly longer operative time but shorter length of hospital stay and similar preoperative VAS scores, ODI score, and postoperative outcomes at <1 month and >1 year. Fusion subgroup analysis showed significantly lower VAS score for back pain with biportal surgery than with open surgery, but the other measures were comparable. Despite its longer operative time, biportal endoscopy led to shorter hospital stay and similar long-term pain and disability outcomes, compared with open spine surgery. Given the significant improvement in short-term leg pain relief after fusion procedures, biportal endoscopic spine surgery is a potential minimally invasive alternative to open surgery that warrants further study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Spine Journal
Asian Spine Journal ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
108
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信