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 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.
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.