[Prospective comparative study of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis].

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). Conclusion: UBE-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.

[Research progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis].

Objective: To review the application and progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods: The domestic and foreign literature on the application of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of LSS was extensively reviewed, and the advantages, disadvantages, and complications of different surgical methods were summarized. Results: At present, minimally invasive spinal decompression mainly includes microscopic bilateral decompression, microendoscopic decompression, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression, unilateral biportal endoscopy, and so on. Compared with traditional open surgery, different minimally invasive spinal decompression techniques can reduce the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain of patients, thereby reducing hospital stay and saving treatment costs. Conclusion: The indications of different minimally invasive spinal decompression are different, but there are certain advantages and disadvantages. When patients have clear surgical indications, individualized treatment plans should be formulated according to the symptoms and signs of patients, combined with imaging manifestations.