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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Yang, Gao, Shang Jun, Hu, Xu, Lin, Shi Shui
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