Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) versus other forms of spine surgery. METHODS: Electronic databases were systematically searched up to February 2022. The authors used Review Manager 5.3 to manage the data and perform the review....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zheng, Bin, Xu, Shuai, Guo, Chen, Jin, Linyu, Liu, Chenjun, Liu, Haiying
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9357908/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35959116
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.911914
_version_ 1784763812457480192
author Zheng, Bin
Xu, Shuai
Guo, Chen
Jin, Linyu
Liu, Chenjun
Liu, Haiying
author_facet Zheng, Bin
Xu, Shuai
Guo, Chen
Jin, Linyu
Liu, Chenjun
Liu, Haiying
author_sort Zheng, Bin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) versus other forms of spine surgery. METHODS: Electronic databases were systematically searched up to February 2022. The authors used Review Manager 5.3 to manage the data and perform the review. RESULTS: After the preliminary selection of 239 studies from electronic databases, the full inclusion criteria were applied; 16 studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. These 16 studies enrolled 1,488 patients: 653 patients in the UBE group, 570 in the microendoscopic discectomy group, 153 in the percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy group, and 70 in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. UBE was superior to microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale(VAS) back pain scores (P < 0.00001). No difference was found between UBE and microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale leg pain scores (P = 0.25), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.06), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.05), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.09) or complications (P = 0.19). Pooled analysis indicated that UBE was similar to percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy regarding 1-day VAS back pain scores (P = 0.71), 1-day VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.37), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.75), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.41), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.07) and complications (P = 0.88). One study reported no difference between UBE and posterior lumbar interbody fusion regarding long-term VAS back pain, long-term VAS leg pain, or Oswestry Disability Index scores. CONCLUSIONS: UBE is superior to microendoscopic discectomy to relieve back pain 1 day postoperatively. However, these two procedures are similar regarding 1-day leg pain relief, long-term effects, and safety. UBE and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy are similar regarding 1-day pain relief, long-term effects and safety. More evidence is needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBE versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9357908
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93579082022-08-10 Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis Zheng, Bin Xu, Shuai Guo, Chen Jin, Linyu Liu, Chenjun Liu, Haiying Front Surg Surgery BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) versus other forms of spine surgery. METHODS: Electronic databases were systematically searched up to February 2022. The authors used Review Manager 5.3 to manage the data and perform the review. RESULTS: After the preliminary selection of 239 studies from electronic databases, the full inclusion criteria were applied; 16 studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. These 16 studies enrolled 1,488 patients: 653 patients in the UBE group, 570 in the microendoscopic discectomy group, 153 in the percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy group, and 70 in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. UBE was superior to microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale(VAS) back pain scores (P < 0.00001). No difference was found between UBE and microendoscopic discectomy regarding 1-day Visual Analog Scale leg pain scores (P = 0.25), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.06), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.05), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.09) or complications (P = 0.19). Pooled analysis indicated that UBE was similar to percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy regarding 1-day VAS back pain scores (P = 0.71), 1-day VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.37), long-term VAS back pain scores (P = 0.75), long-term VAS leg pain scores (P = 0.41), Oswestry Disability Index scores (P = 0.07) and complications (P = 0.88). One study reported no difference between UBE and posterior lumbar interbody fusion regarding long-term VAS back pain, long-term VAS leg pain, or Oswestry Disability Index scores. CONCLUSIONS: UBE is superior to microendoscopic discectomy to relieve back pain 1 day postoperatively. However, these two procedures are similar regarding 1-day leg pain relief, long-term effects, and safety. UBE and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy are similar regarding 1-day pain relief, long-term effects and safety. More evidence is needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UBE versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9357908/ /pubmed/35959116 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.911914 Text en © 2022 Zheng, Xu, Guo, Jin, Liu and Liu. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Surgery
Zheng, Bin
Xu, Shuai
Guo, Chen
Jin, Linyu
Liu, Chenjun
Liu, Haiying
Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus other spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9357908/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35959116
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.911914
work_keys_str_mv AT zhengbin efficacyandsafetyofunilateralbiportalendoscopyversusotherspinesurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT xushuai efficacyandsafetyofunilateralbiportalendoscopyversusotherspinesurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT guochen efficacyandsafetyofunilateralbiportalendoscopyversusotherspinesurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jinlinyu efficacyandsafetyofunilateralbiportalendoscopyversusotherspinesurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liuchenjun efficacyandsafetyofunilateralbiportalendoscopyversusotherspinesurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liuhaiying efficacyandsafetyofunilateralbiportalendoscopyversusotherspinesurgeryasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis