Cargando…

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES: To compare the short-term outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BLIF) and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF). METHODS: Sixty patients diagnosed with L4/5 spinal stenosis who underwent BLIF and ULIF were included (30 in each group). Clinical...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xie, Y. Z., Shi, Y., Zhou, Q., Feng, C. Q., Zhou, Y., Li, T., Yu, Y., Fan, X. H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9308319/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35870934
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03249-4
_version_ 1784752960145719296
author Xie, Y. Z.
Shi, Y.
Zhou, Q.
Feng, C. Q.
Zhou, Y.
Li, T.
Yu, Y.
Fan, X. H.
author_facet Xie, Y. Z.
Shi, Y.
Zhou, Q.
Feng, C. Q.
Zhou, Y.
Li, T.
Yu, Y.
Fan, X. H.
author_sort Xie, Y. Z.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare the short-term outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BLIF) and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF). METHODS: Sixty patients diagnosed with L4/5 spinal stenosis who underwent BLIF and ULIF were included (30 in each group). Clinical evaluation was performed preoperatively and postoperatively in the 1st week, 1st month, and 1st year. Factors such as the visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), operative time, surgical complications, and radiological outcomes (fusion rate, screw loosening, and cage subsidence) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: All patients showed improved mean VAS and ODI at all three postoperative follow-ups, and no statistically significant differences were detected between the BLIF and ULIF groups. The mean operative time in the BLIF group was shorter than that in the ULIF group. Nerve root injury occurred in two patients in the BLIF group, while leakage of cerebrospinal fluid occurred in one patient in the ULIF group. All adverse events were treated adequately prior to discharge. The fusion rates with definite and probable grades were significantly higher in the BLIF group than that in the ULIF group. One case of cage subsidence with no screw loosening occurred in each group. CONCLUSION: Both BLIF and ULIF are safe and effective surgical techniques. Compared with ULIF, BLIF has the advantages of shorter operative time and a higher fusion rate. Other merits of BLIF include a wider surgical field, greater maneuverability of instruments, visibility during cage implantation, and transverse orientation of the cage.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9308319
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93083192022-07-24 Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up Xie, Y. Z. Shi, Y. Zhou, Q. Feng, C. Q. Zhou, Y. Li, T. Yu, Y. Fan, X. H. J Orthop Surg Res Research Article OBJECTIVES: To compare the short-term outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BLIF) and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF). METHODS: Sixty patients diagnosed with L4/5 spinal stenosis who underwent BLIF and ULIF were included (30 in each group). Clinical evaluation was performed preoperatively and postoperatively in the 1st week, 1st month, and 1st year. Factors such as the visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), operative time, surgical complications, and radiological outcomes (fusion rate, screw loosening, and cage subsidence) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: All patients showed improved mean VAS and ODI at all three postoperative follow-ups, and no statistically significant differences were detected between the BLIF and ULIF groups. The mean operative time in the BLIF group was shorter than that in the ULIF group. Nerve root injury occurred in two patients in the BLIF group, while leakage of cerebrospinal fluid occurred in one patient in the ULIF group. All adverse events were treated adequately prior to discharge. The fusion rates with definite and probable grades were significantly higher in the BLIF group than that in the ULIF group. One case of cage subsidence with no screw loosening occurred in each group. CONCLUSION: Both BLIF and ULIF are safe and effective surgical techniques. Compared with ULIF, BLIF has the advantages of shorter operative time and a higher fusion rate. Other merits of BLIF include a wider surgical field, greater maneuverability of instruments, visibility during cage implantation, and transverse orientation of the cage. BioMed Central 2022-07-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9308319/ /pubmed/35870934 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03249-4 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
Xie, Y. Z.
Shi, Y.
Zhou, Q.
Feng, C. Q.
Zhou, Y.
Li, T.
Yu, Y.
Fan, X. H.
Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up
title Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up
title_full Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up
title_fullStr Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up
title_short Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up
title_sort comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9308319/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35870934
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03249-4
work_keys_str_mv AT xieyz comparisonofthesafetyandefficacyofunilateralbiportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusionanduniportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusiona1yearfollowup
AT shiy comparisonofthesafetyandefficacyofunilateralbiportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusionanduniportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusiona1yearfollowup
AT zhouq comparisonofthesafetyandefficacyofunilateralbiportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusionanduniportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusiona1yearfollowup
AT fengcq comparisonofthesafetyandefficacyofunilateralbiportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusionanduniportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusiona1yearfollowup
AT zhouy comparisonofthesafetyandefficacyofunilateralbiportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusionanduniportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusiona1yearfollowup
AT lit comparisonofthesafetyandefficacyofunilateralbiportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusionanduniportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusiona1yearfollowup
AT yuy comparisonofthesafetyandefficacyofunilateralbiportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusionanduniportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusiona1yearfollowup
AT fanxh comparisonofthesafetyandefficacyofunilateralbiportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusionanduniportalendoscopiclumbarinterbodyfusiona1yearfollowup