Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation linked with posterior ring apophysis separation: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Posterior ring apophysis separation (PRAS) associated with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a relatively rare form of disc herniation. This study aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in the treatment of PRAS with LDH. METHODS: We enrolled 41 patients who met the inclusion criteria to undergo either unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) (15 cases) or percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) (26 cases) between October 2022 and October 2023. Perioperative evaluation parameters included mean operative time, hemoglobin (Hb) loss, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative complications. Outcomes were assessed at admission, as well as at 1, 3, and 6 months post-surgery using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Additionally, we evaluated the results according to the modified MacNab criteria. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated improvements in postoperative VAS and ODI scores. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in VAS and ODI scores before surgery, or at 1, 3, and 6 months post-surgery. Additionally, no notable differences were observed in the modified MacNab criteria. The UBE group experienced greater hemoglobin (Hb) loss, longer mean operative time, and increased length of stay (LOS) compared to the PELD group. Furthermore, two patients in the PELD group reported recurrence, while one patient in the UBE group experienced a dural tear. CONCLUSIONS: UBE and PELD possess strong clinical effectiveness for treating PRAS with LDH. Although the UBE group had a longer mean operative time and LOS, with more Hb loss, the UBE group had a lower recurrence rate. Therefore, UBE remains safe and innovative for the treatment of PRAS with LDH.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation.

Background: As the latest endoscopic spine surgery, percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) discectomy have distinct technical characteristics. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of PEID and UBE discectomy in the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Methods: Between February 2019 and April 2022, 115 patients with single-level LDH at L4-5 or L5-S1 received PEID or UBE discectomy. The patients were separated into two groups based on the surgical method used: Group 1 (the PEID group) (n = 60) and Group 2 (the UBE group) (n = 55). Various parameters, including operative time, hospitalization time, fluoroscopy frequency, total costs, complications, visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Results: There were no significant differences in the VAS and ODI scores in 12 months after the operation between two groups (P > 0.05). However, the VAS of lower back pain on the first day after the operation in Group 2 (2.53±0.89) was higher than that in Group 1 (2.19±0.74) (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the operation time and incidence of complications between two groups (P > 0.05). But total costs in Group 2 (43,121±4280) were significantly higher than those in Group 1 (30,069±3551) (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Both UBE and PEID procedures have similar efficacy in alleviating pain and improving functional ability in patients with LDH. However, UBE surgery results in higher costs than PEID surgery.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) with microdiscectomy (MD) for treating lumbar disk herniation (LDH). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Web of Science databases from database inception to April 2023 to identify studies comparing UBED and MD for treating LDH. This study evaluated the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Macnab scores, operation time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and complications, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Macnab scores at various pre- and post-surgery stages. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 9 distinct studies with a total of 1001 patients. The VAS scores for low back pain showed no significant differences between the groups at postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.09) and final follow-up (P = 0.13); however, the UBED group had lower VAS scores at postoperative 1-3 days (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in leg pain VAS scores at baseline (P = 0.05), postoperative 1-3 days (P = 0.24), postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.78), or at the final follow-up (P = 0.43). ODI comparisons revealed no significant differences preoperatively (P = 0.83), at postoperative 1 week (P = 0.47), or postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.13), and the UBED group demonstrated better ODI at the final follow-up (P = 0.03). The UBED group also exhibited a shorter mean operative time (P = 0.03), significantly shorter hospital stay (P < 0.00001), and less estimated blood loss (P = 0.0002). Complications and modified MacNab scores showed no significant differences between the groups (P = 0.56 and P = 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: The evidence revealed no significant differences in efficacy between UBED and MD for LDH treatment. However, UBED may offer potential benefits such as shorter hospital stays, lower estimated blood loss, and comparable complication rates.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for migrated lumbar disc herniation at lower lumbar spine: a retrospective controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Both Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy (UBED) and Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy (PEID) have resulted in favorable clinical outcomes in the management of LDH. The aim of this study is to comprehensively compare the efficacy of UBED and PEID in treating migrated LDH in the lower lumbar spine, with a specific focus on high-grade migrated LDH. METHODS: 96 patients who underwent UBED (31 cases) and PEID (65 cases) procedures were enrolled in the study. All patients received a minimum follow-up period of 6 months. Clinical outcomes of the patients were assessed with incision length, operation time, total hemoglobin loss, hospital stay, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, visual analogue scale (VAS) for lower back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), modified MacNab criteria, complications, area of lamina loss and increased intervertebral height. RESULTS: The VAS scores for lower back and leg pain and ODI significantly decreased in both groups after the operation. Preoperatively, at 1 day, 1 month, and 6 months after the procedure, the VAS and ODI scores exhibited no significant differences between the two groups. There was no significant difference in terms of modified MacNab criteria, area of lamina loss, and increased intervertebral height. The UBED group had a longer incision length, operation time and postoperative hospital stay, and fewer intraoperative fluoroscopy times than to the PEID group. Complications were noted in both groups throughout the follow-up period, but there was no significant difference in the rate of complications. Moreover, there were no notable differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups in the high-grade migrated LDH. CONCLUSIONS: Both UBED and PEID could achieve favorable clinical outcomes for treating migrated LDH at the lower lumbar spine. Despite the longer operative time and postoperative hospital stay associated with the UBED group, UBED remains safe and innovative for treating migrated LDH at the lower lumbar spine.

Comparison of lumbar microdiscectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy outcomes: a single-center experience.

OBJECTIVE: Lumbar microdiscectomy (LMD) is still the gold-standard treatment for lumbar disc herniations with progressive neurological deficits that are refractory to conservative treatment. With improvement of endoscopic systems in recent years, endoscopic discectomy techniques have been developed as an alternative to LMD. The unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) technique is one of these endoscopic techniques, and its popularity has increased in recent years because it does not require high-cost specialized endoscopes, many microsurgical instruments are compatible with this system, and it is similar to LMD in terms of anatomical orientation. This study compared results between LMD and UBE techniques in patients with lumbar disc herniations performed by the same spine surgeons at a single center. METHODS: The data of patients with lumbar disc herniation who were operated on with LMD and UBE techniques were retrospectively reviewed. The data obtained were statistically evaluated. The operative video of one of the patients who underwent UBE was edited for demonstration. RESULTS: Between January 2021 and June 2022, 93 patients were operated on for lumbar disc herniation. LMD was performed in 39 patients, and UBE was performed in 54 patients. There were no significant differences in the complications, recurrence, postoperative back and leg pain, patient satisfaction rates, and quality of life index results of the patients in the two groups. The operation time was shorter in the LMD group. In the UBE group, estimated blood loss was lower and postoperative hospitalization was shorter. CONCLUSIONS: Although LMD is still the gold-standard treatment for lumbar disc herniation, the results of UBE are comparable to those of LMD, and it may be a good alternative for spine surgeons who prefer minimally invasive surgery.

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) is a novel and minimally invasive surgery for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, efficacy and safety of UBED compared to the conventional percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) remains to be determined. A meta-analysis was performed in this study to compare between UBED and PELD for LDH. METHODS: Relevant cohort studies were found by searching Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang, and CNKI from database inception to October 13, 2022. Results were pooled using a random-effects model incorporating heterogeneity. RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, 12 studies involving 1175 patients with LDH were included. Pooled results showed that compared with PELD, UBED was associated with a longer surgery time (mean difference [MD] 17.62 min, P < 0.001) and hospital stay (MD 1.40 day, P = 0.04). However, UBED and PELD showed comparative efficacies in improving the Visual Analogue Scale of leg and back, and Oswestry Disability Index, scores. The incidence of perioperative complications was not significantly different between the 2 procedures (risk ratio [RR] 1.62, P = 0.25), while UBED was associated with a lower LDH recurrence during follow-up (RR 0.29, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Although UBED is associated with longer surgery time and hospital stay, it shows similar efficacy to PELD in relieving pain and improving functional ability in patients with LDH. In addition, limited evidence suggests that UBED may be associated with a lower LDH recurrence as compared to PELD, while the incidence of perioperative complications is not different. These findings support UBED as a treatment for patients with LDH.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH. METHODS: The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. RESULTS: The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs.

Clinical comparison of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for single-level lumbar disc herniation.

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) for the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Materials and methods: From January 2020 to November 2021, 62 patients with single-level LDH were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent spinal surgeries at the Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical University and Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University. Among them, 30 patients were treated with UBE, and 32 were treated with PTED. The patients were followed up for at least one year. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were reviewed before and after surgery. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain, and modified MacNab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes. x-ray examinations were performed one year after surgery to assess the stability of the lumbar spine. Results: The mean ages in the UBE and PTED groups were 46.7 years and 48.0 years, respectively. Compared to the UBE group, the PTED group had better VAS scores for back pain at 1 and 7 days after surgery (3.06 ± 0.80 vs. 4.03 ± 0.81, P < 0.05; 2.81 ± 0.60 vs. 3.70 ± 0.79, P < 0.05). The UBE and PTED groups demonstrated significant improvements in the VAS score for leg pain and ODI score, and no significant differences were found between the groups at any time after the first month (P > 0.05). Although the good-to-excellent rate of the modified MacNab criteria in the UBE group was similar to that in the PTED group (86.7% vs. 87.5%, P > 0.05), PTED was advantageous in terms of the operation time, estimated blood loss, incision length, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Conclusions: Both UBE and PTED have favorable outcomes in patients with single-level LDH. However, PTED is superior to UBE in terms of short-term postoperative back pain relief and perioperative quality of life.

Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for single l4/5-level lumbar disk herniation.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to investigate the outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the single L4/5-level lumbar disk herniation (sLDH). METHODS: From January 2018 to January 2021, a total of 40 patients with sLDH were retrospectively analyzed in this study. All the patients had received spinal surgeries in Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University and Affiliated Nantong Hospital 3 of Nantong University. Among them, 20 patients were treated with PELD (PELD group), and 20 patients were treated with UBE discectomy (UBE group). Postoperative length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, operation time, and clinical complications of the patients were compared between the two groups. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were measured before surgeries and 3 days, 1, and 6 months after surgeries. RESULTS: Compared with the UBE group, the PELD group had obviously less intraoperative blood loss, shorter operative time, and shorter hospital stay. The differences in the rate of complications were not statistically significant between the two groups. The VAS score and the ODI score of the two groups had a great reduction after operation. In addition, both the groups had satisfactory clinical outcome; the VAS score and ODI of the PELD group decreased more obviously. CONCLUSION: The UBE for sLDH yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD as minimally invasive surgeries; however, PELD is superior to UBE in terms of intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative hospitalization, and short-term postoperative pain relief. The advantages and disadvantages of the two surgeries should be circumspectly balanced when evaluating a patient for a minimally invasive surgery for sLDH, selecting the most appropriate surgical method for patients.

Comparison of Surgical Invasiveness Between Microdiscectomy and 3 Different Endoscopic Discectomy Techniques for Lumbar Disc Herniation.

OBJECTIVE: Muscle injury is inevitable during surgical exposure of the spine. This study compared paraspinal muscle injury after 4 surgical techniques: microdiscectomy (MD), percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID), unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED). METHODS: Eighty patients who underwent MD, PELD, PEID, and UBED were prospectively observed. Creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and C-reactive protein levels were measured on admission and postoperative days 1, 3, 5, and 7. CPK ratio was calculated as CPK on postoperative day 1/CPK on admission. Cross-sectional area of the high-intensity lesion in the paraspinal muscle was measured on magnetic resonance imaging after surgery. Operative time and hospital stay duration were also examined. Clinical outcome was evaluated using the visual analog scale for back and leg pain. RESULTS: MD group had the highest CPK levels on postoperative days 1 and 3 and CPK ratio (P < 0.01, P = 0.02, P = 0.04). Serial C-reactive protein levels were highest in MD group (P < 0.01). PELD and PEID groups had lower C-reactive protein level on postoperative day 1 than UBED group. MD group had largest cross-sectional area (P < 0.01). Cross-sectional area was larger in UBED group than in PELD and PEID groups (P < 0.01). Operative time and hospital stay duration were shortest in PELD group (P < 0.01, P < 0.01). MD group had significantly higher visual analog scale scores for back pain on postoperative days 1 and 3 than the other groups (P < 0.01, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: PELD is the least invasive spinal surgical technique.