Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression with Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (UBED) offers the advantages of minimal tissue damage, operational flexibility, and clear visualization, positioning it as an innovative, minimally invasive endoscopic technique. Nevertheless, the clinical evidence supporting the use of UBED in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases (DLD) is limited and conflicting.

METHODS

As of October 1, 2023, a comprehensive search was conducted across databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify all published studies on minimally invasive UBED for the treatment of DLD. Data pertaining to patient demographics, fluoroscopy time, operative duration, intraoperative hemorrhage, hospitalization length, visual analog scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, MacNab criteria, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complication rates were extracted. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was utilized to assess the quality.

RESULTS

Twelve articles were included, involving 816 patients. The back VAS score (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.09-0.07, p=0.75), MacNab criteria (95%CI: 0.52-2.3, p=0.82), fluoroscopy time (95%CI: -7.03-0.4, p=0.08), and the incidence of complications (95%CI: 0.5-1.73, p=0.82) were not significantly different, while the leg VAS score (95%CI: 0.01-0.18, p=0.03), ODI score (95%CI: -1.03-0.09, p=0.02), operation time (95%CI: 5.76-20.62, p=0.0005), hospitalization length (95%CI: 0.41-2.76, p=0.008), and intraoperative hemorrhage (95%CI: 21.92-72.44, p=0.0003) were significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

UBED offers superiority in ODI, flexibility, and visual field clarity. Conversely, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression presents advantages in terms of operation duration, blood loss, hospitalization length, and leg VAS score. These factors should be thoroughly considered when selecting a surgical approach.

[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.

Efficacy of Repeat Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Reoperation of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of repeat percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) reoperation.

Patients and Methods

This study included patients with LSS who relapsed following treatment with PELD therapy between March 2017 and March 2020. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were analyzed preoperatively, postoperatively at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, and at final follow-up. The modified MacNab criteria were used to assess clinical effects. All complications were recorded.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 3 years, 24 patients with LSS who underwent repeat PELD were identified. The patients' mean operative time was 122.3±29.2 min, blood loss was 12.5±5.3 mL, and mean hospital stay was 7.0±1.9 days. VAS leg-pain score improved from 6.1±1.0 to 2.0±1.2 (P<0.001), VAS back-pain score improved from 6.2±0.8 to 2.1±1.1 (P<0.001), and ODI improved from 68.9±6.0 to 20.9±5.6 (P <0.001). According to the modified MacNab criteria, the good-to-excellent rate was 83.3%. Postoperative complications, including hematoma, nerve root injury, and dural injury, developed in four patients.

Conclusion

Repeat PELD for reoperation in patients with LSS has a good clinical effect, and is recommended in routine clinical practice. Careful intraoperative manipulation is recommended to prevent complications.

Comparison of Effects of PELD and Fenestration in the Treatment of Geriatric Lumbar Lateral Recess Stenosis

Purpose

Although degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is increasingly being diagnosed in older people, there is much uncertainty about the appropriate operative treatment options. The objective of this study was to compare the outcome of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) versus fenestration for lumbar lateral recess stenosis (LRS) in geriatric patients over 75 years old.

Materials and methods

This prospective controlled study was performed on 46 consecutive over aged patients with lateral recess stenosis who underwent either PELD or fenestration. Clinical data were recorded before, 1 week, 3 months and 1.5 years after surgery using visual analog scale (VAS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score (JOA), The Short-Form-36 (SF-36), and the modified Macnab evaluation criteria.

Results

The patients’ mean age was 82.7 years (aged 75–93 years) in PELD group and 79.1 years (aged 75–88 years) in fenestration group. No statistical difference was found between PELD group and fenestration group with regards to VAS-back pain, VAS-leg pain, JOA and at 3 months and 1.5-year follow-up. However, the PELD group had a lower mean VAS for back pain at 1 week postoperatively (P<0.05). The quality of life in PELD group achieved the same remarkable improvement as fenestration group (P>0.05). Operative time (min) was similar between two groups (p>0.05), while the PELD techniques brought advantages in blood loss (mL) (48.3 vs 128.2, p<0.05), early ambulation (h) (5.5 vs 25.2, p<0.05), and anesthesia-related complications.

Conclusion

Both PELD and fenestration showed favorable clinical outcomes for the treatment of lumbar lateral recess stenosis. In addition, PELD had advantages such as reduced traumatization and less anesthesia-related complications. In terms of quality of life and complications after operation, PELD under local anesthesia could be an efficient supplement to conventional decompression surgery in geriatric patients with lumbar lateral recess stenosis.