Cargando…
Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and prognosis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases. METHODS: Chinese and English databases were retrieved for the period from database creat...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10470694/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37653732 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000034705 |
_version_ | 1785099736810782720 |
---|---|
author | Li, Yang Gao, Shang Jun Hu, Xu Lin, Shi Shui |
author_facet | Li, Yang Gao, Shang Jun Hu, Xu Lin, Shi Shui |
author_sort | Li, Yang |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and prognosis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases. METHODS: Chinese and English databases were retrieved for the period from database creation to December 31, 2022. Case-control studies on unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion were collected. The observation indexes consisted of operation times, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, postoperative MacNab excellent and good rate, imaging fusion rate at the last follow-up, and complications. The NO rating table was employed to assess the quality of the included literature, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Revman5.4.1 and Stata17. RESULTS: Ten studies with 738 surgical patients were considered, including 347 patients in the ULIF group and 391 in the MIS-TLIF group. This Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in mean operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and early postoperative (1–2W) visual analogue scale/score (VAS) scores for back pain. No significant differences were observed in the final follow-up postoperative VAS scores for back pain, postoperative leg VAS score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, excellent and good rate of postoperative modified MacNab, imaging fusion rate, and complications. CONCLUSION: Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the ULIF group had longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume, lower lumbar VAS score in the early postoperative period, and shorter hospital stay. ULIF is less invasive than traditional MIS-TLIF, making it a trustworthy surgical option for lumbar degenerative diseases with comparable fusion efficiency, superior MacNab rate, and complication rate. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10470694 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104706942023-09-01 Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis Li, Yang Gao, Shang Jun Hu, Xu Lin, Shi Shui Medicine (Baltimore) 7100 BACKGROUND: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and prognosis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases. METHODS: Chinese and English databases were retrieved for the period from database creation to December 31, 2022. Case-control studies on unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion were collected. The observation indexes consisted of operation times, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, postoperative MacNab excellent and good rate, imaging fusion rate at the last follow-up, and complications. The NO rating table was employed to assess the quality of the included literature, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Revman5.4.1 and Stata17. RESULTS: Ten studies with 738 surgical patients were considered, including 347 patients in the ULIF group and 391 in the MIS-TLIF group. This Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in mean operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and early postoperative (1–2W) visual analogue scale/score (VAS) scores for back pain. No significant differences were observed in the final follow-up postoperative VAS scores for back pain, postoperative leg VAS score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, excellent and good rate of postoperative modified MacNab, imaging fusion rate, and complications. CONCLUSION: Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the ULIF group had longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume, lower lumbar VAS score in the early postoperative period, and shorter hospital stay. ULIF is less invasive than traditional MIS-TLIF, making it a trustworthy surgical option for lumbar degenerative diseases with comparable fusion efficiency, superior MacNab rate, and complication rate. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10470694/ /pubmed/37653732 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000034705 Text en Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. |
spellingShingle | 7100 Li, Yang Gao, Shang Jun Hu, Xu Lin, Shi Shui Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | 7100 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10470694/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37653732 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000034705 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liyang comparisonofefficacybetweenunilateralbiportalendoscopiclumbarfusionversusminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarfusioninthetreatmentoflumbardegenerativediseasesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT gaoshangjun comparisonofefficacybetweenunilateralbiportalendoscopiclumbarfusionversusminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarfusioninthetreatmentoflumbardegenerativediseasesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT huxu comparisonofefficacybetweenunilateralbiportalendoscopiclumbarfusionversusminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarfusioninthetreatmentoflumbardegenerativediseasesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT linshishui comparisonofefficacybetweenunilateralbiportalendoscopiclumbarfusionversusminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarfusioninthetreatmentoflumbardegenerativediseasesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |