Cargando…

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 surg...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jiang, Hao-Wei, Chen, Cheng-Dong, Zhan, Bi-Shui, Wang, Yong-Li, Tang, Pan, Jiang, Xue-Sheng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8760683/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35033143
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5
_version_ 1784633374338449408
author Jiang, Hao-Wei
Chen, Cheng-Dong
Zhan, Bi-Shui
Wang, Yong-Li
Tang, Pan
Jiang, Xue-Sheng
author_facet Jiang, Hao-Wei
Chen, Cheng-Dong
Zhan, Bi-Shui
Wang, Yong-Li
Tang, Pan
Jiang, Xue-Sheng
author_sort Jiang, Hao-Wei
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8760683
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87606832022-01-18 Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study Jiang, Hao-Wei Chen, Cheng-Dong Zhan, Bi-Shui Wang, Yong-Li Tang, Pan Jiang, Xue-Sheng J Orthop Surg Res Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2022-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8760683/ /pubmed/35033143 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Jiang, Hao-Wei
Chen, Cheng-Dong
Zhan, Bi-Shui
Wang, Yong-Li
Tang, Pan
Jiang, Xue-Sheng
Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
title Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
title_full Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
title_fullStr Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
title_full_unstemmed Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
title_short Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
title_sort unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8760683/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35033143
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5
work_keys_str_mv AT jianghaowei unilateralbiportalendoscopicdiscectomyversuspercutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyinthetreatmentoflumbardischerniationaretrospectivestudy
AT chenchengdong unilateralbiportalendoscopicdiscectomyversuspercutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyinthetreatmentoflumbardischerniationaretrospectivestudy
AT zhanbishui unilateralbiportalendoscopicdiscectomyversuspercutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyinthetreatmentoflumbardischerniationaretrospectivestudy
AT wangyongli unilateralbiportalendoscopicdiscectomyversuspercutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyinthetreatmentoflumbardischerniationaretrospectivestudy
AT tangpan unilateralbiportalendoscopicdiscectomyversuspercutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyinthetreatmentoflumbardischerniationaretrospectivestudy
AT jiangxuesheng unilateralbiportalendoscopicdiscectomyversuspercutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyinthetreatmentoflumbardischerniationaretrospectivestudy