Cargando…
Comparison of the results of open PLIF versus UBE PLIF in lumbar spinal stenosis: postoperative adjacent segment instability is lesser in UBE
OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference in efficacy between open PLIF and UBE for lumbar spinal stenosis and the effect on postoperative adjacent segment instability. METHOD: The clinical data of 37 patients with PLIF and 32 patients with UBE for lumbar spinal stenosis were retrospectively analyzed to...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386635/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37516831 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04038-3 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference in efficacy between open PLIF and UBE for lumbar spinal stenosis and the effect on postoperative adjacent segment instability. METHOD: The clinical data of 37 patients with PLIF and 32 patients with UBE for lumbar spinal stenosis were retrospectively analyzed to compare the differences in perioperative conditions and short- and medium-term outcomes. RESULTS: All 69 patients completed the surgery successfully. The operating time, number of intraoperative fluoroscopies and hospital days were higher in the UBE group than in the open PLIF group. Intraoperative bleeding and postoperative drainage were lower than in the open PLIF group (P < 0.05). The visual analogue scale (VAS) of low back pain was lower in the UBE group than in the open PLIF group at 1 month and 3 months postoperatively (P < 0.05), and there were no statistically significant VAS scores for low back pain in the two groups at 1 day and 6 months postoperatively (P > 0.05). Leg pain VAS scores were lower in the UBE group than in the open PLIF group at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05), and leg pain VAS scores were not statistically significant in both groups at 1 day postoperatively (P > 0.05). The ODI index was lower in the UBE group than in the open PLIF group at 1 day and 1 month postoperatively (P < 0.05) and was not statistically significant in the two groups at 3 months and 6 months postoperatively (P > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in postoperative interbody height, sagittal diameter of the spinal canal, efficacy of modified MacNab and interbody fusion (P > 0.05). The open PLIF group was more prone to postoperative adjacent vertebral instability than the UBE group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: With appropriate indications, the open PLIF group and the UBE group had similar short- and medium-term clinical outcomes for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, but patients in the UBE group had better symptomatic improvement than the open PLIF group at 3 months postoperatively, and the effect on postoperative adjacent vertebral instability was smaller in the endoscopic group than in the open PLIF group. |
---|