Objective To analyze the perioperative efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation using unilateral biportal endoscopy technique. Methods A total of 55 patients who received unilateral biportal endoscopy technique for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation in Tianjin Hospital between January and December 2020 were selected and randomly divided into the traditional group and the ERAS group according to random number table method. The routine inpatient care management was adopted in the traditional group, while the holistic integrated care plan was formulated in the ERAS group according to the multidisciplinary collaboration of the accelerated rehabilitation plan. The first postoperative exhaust time, the first time out of bed, length of hospital stay, hospital costs, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores before operation, one day and three days after operation, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores before operation and one month after operation, and the excellent and good rate of modified MacNab efficacy one month after operation were compared between the two groups. Results There were 28 cases in the traditional group and 27 cases in the ERAS group. The first postoperative exhaust time [(2.31±1.02) vs. (3.19±0.87) h], the first postoperative ambulation time [(1.06±0.40) vs. (2.00±0.53) d], length of hospital stay [(3.8±0.8) vs. (4.6±0.8) d], and hospital cost [(32.18±9.10) thousand yuan vs. (39.81±11.10) thousand yuan] in the ERAS group were all less than those in the traditional group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The VAS scores of the ERAS group one day after operation (3.2±0.8 vs. 4.1±0.8) and three days after operation (1.4±0.5 vs. 1.7±0.5) were lower than those of the traditional group (P<0.05). The ODI scores of the ERAS group one month after operation was lower than that of the traditional group (13.3±4.0 vs. 16.6±4.8, P<0.05). In the modified MacNab efficacy evaluation one month after surgery, there was no significant difference in the excellent and good rate between the ERAS group and the traditional group (96.3% vs. 96.4%, P>0.05). Conclusions ERAS regimen can significantly accelerate the patients’ recovery, including shortening the first exhaust time, facilitating early ambulation, and reducing the hospital stay and hospitalization expenses. Meanwhile, ERAS regimen can effectively reduce the postoperative pain of the patients, and promote early functional recovery.
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of digital three-dimensional (3D) assisted unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in the treatment of highly isolated lumbar disc herniation (LDH) with translaminar approach. Methods The clinical data of 59 patients who met the selection criteria and underwent UBE treatment due to highly isolated LDH between January 2022 and December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 25 cases were treated with digital 3D assisted translaminar approach (observation group) and 34 cases were treated with interlaminar approach (control group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and lateral articular surface preservation rate were recorded and compared between the two groups. VAS score and ODI were used to evaluate the improvements of pain and function before operation and at 3 and 6 months after operation. The modified MacNab criteria was used to evaluate the effectiveness at last follow-up. Results One patient in the control group had dural tear, and the other patients had no nerve injury, infection, dural tear, or other related complications. There was no significant difference in operation time and intraoperative blood loss between the two groups (P>0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up 6-13 months, with an average of 8.3 months. The lateral articular surface preservation rate in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<0.05). Three patients in the observation group and 2 patients in the control group had calf muscle venous thrombosis, which was cured after anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban and delayed exercise time. There was no recurrence or second operation during the follow-up period. The VAS score and ODI of the two groups at 3 and 6 months after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). At last follow-up, the effectiveness was evaluated according to the modified MacNab criteria, and there was no significant difference in the evaluation grade and excellent and good rate between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclution UBE via translaminar approach is safe and effective for the treatment of highly isolated LDH, which is beneficial to protect the facet joint, maintain spinal stability, and reduce soft tissue injury. With the assistance of digital 3D technique, preoperative planning can be performed accurately.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness between unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (ULBD) with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and uniportal interlaminar endoscopy (UIE) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods A clinical data of 52 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, who met the selection criteria and treated with ULBD between March 2021 and November 2022, was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were allocated into UBE group (23 cases) and UIE group (29 cases) according to the surgical methods. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in age, gender, body mass index, surgical segment, type of lumbar stenosis, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), disc height, and dural sac area between the two groups. Perioperative indexes (incision length, operation time, hospital stay, and surgical complications), clinical indicators (VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, and ODI before operation and at 3 days, 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months after operation), and imaging indicators (disc height and dural sac area before operation and at 1, 12 months after operation, and dural sac expansion area) were recorded and compared between the two group. Results All operations in both groups were successfully completed. Compared with the UIE group, the UBE group had shorter operation time and longer incision length, with significant differences (P<0.05). But there was no significant difference in hospital stay and incidence of complications between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12-20 months (mean, 14 months). The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI after operation significantly improved when compared with preoperative values (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in the above indicators between different time points after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at different time points (P>0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in disc height between the two groups at different time points after operation (P>0.05). However, the dural sac area and dural sac expansion area were significantly larger in the UBE group than in the UIE group (P<0.05). Conclusion ULBD with UBE and UIE can achieve satisfactory effectiveness in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. But the former has more thorough decompression and better dural sac expansion than the latter.
ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) in the treatment of degreeⅠdegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). MethodsA clinical data of 58 patients with degreeⅠDLS who met the selection criteria between October 2021 and October 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 28 cases were treated with unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (decompression group) and 30 cases with ULIF (ULIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05) in the gender, age, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), disk height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and other baseline data. The operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative ambulation time, VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, ODI, laboratory examination indexes (CRP, ESR), and imaging parameters (DH, SL) were compared between the two groups. ResultsCompared with the ULIF group, the decompression group had shorter operation time, less postoperative drainage, and earlier ambulation (P<0.05). All incisions healed by first intention, and no complication such as nerve root injury, epidural hematoma, or infection occurred. All patients were followed up 12 months. Laboratory tests showed that ESR and CRP at 3 days after operation in decompression group were not significantly different from those before operation (P>0.05), while the above indexes in ULIF group significantly increased at 3 days after operation compared to preoperative values (P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of ESR and CRP before and after operation between the two groups (P<0.05). Except that the VAS score of low back pain at 3 days after operation was not significantly different from that before operation in decompression group (P>0.05), there were significant differences in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points (P<0.05). The VAS score of low back pain in ULIF group was significantly higher than that in decompression group at 3 days after operation (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). The ODI of the two groups significantly improved after operation (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between 3 days and 6 months after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at the two time points after operation (P<0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in DH and SL between pre-operation and 12 months after operation in decompression group (P>0.05). However, the above two indexes in ULIF group were significantly higher than those before operation (P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of DH and SL before and after operation between the two groups (P<0.05). ConclusionUnilateral biportal endoscopic decompression can achieve good effectiveness in the treatment of degree Ⅰ DLS. Compared with ULIF, it can shorten operation time, reduce postoperative drainage volume, promote early ambulation, reduce inflammatory reaction, and accelerate postoperative recovery. ULIF has more advantages in restoring intervertebral DH and SL.
ObjectiveTo evaluate early effectiveness of posterior 180-degree decompression via unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) combined with Michigan State University (MSU)-1 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from 33 patients with LSS combined with MSU-1 LDH, who met selection criteria and were treated between March 2022 and January 2024. All patients underwent UBE-assisted 180-degree spinal canal decompression. The cohort comprised 17 males and 16 females, aged 37-82 years (mean, 67.1 years). Preoperative presentations included bilateral lower limbs intermittent claudication and radiating pain, with disease duration ranging from 5 to 13 months (mean, 8.5 months). Affected segments included L3, 4 in 4 cases, L4, 5 in 28 cases, and L5, S1 in 1 case. LSS was rated as Schizas grade A in 4 cases, grade B in 5 cases, grade C in 13 cases, and grade D in 11 cases. LDH was categorized as MSU-1A in 24 cases, MSU-1B in 2 cases, and MSU-1AB in 7 cases. Intraoperative parameters (operation time, blood loss) and postoperative hospitalization length were recorded. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to assess the lower limb pain and functional outcomes after operation. Clinical efficacy was evaluated at last follow-up via modified MacNab criteria. Quantitative radiological assessments included dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA) measurements and spinal stenosis grading on lumbar MRI. Morphological classification of lumbar canal stenosis was determined according to the Schizas grading, categorized into four grades. Results The operation time was 60.4-90.8 minutes (mean, 80.3 minutes) and intraoperative blood loss was 13-47 mL (mean, 29.9 mL). The postoperative hospitalization length was 3-5 days (mean, 3.8 days). All patients were followed up 12-16 months (mean, 13.8 months). The VAS score and ODI improved at immediate and 3, 6, and 12 months after operation compared to before operation, and the differences between different time points were significant (P<0.05). At last follow-up, the clinical efficacy assessed by the modified MacNab criteria were graded as excellent in 23 cases, good in 9 cases, and poor in 1 case, with an excellent and good rate of 96.97%. Postoperative lumbar MRI revealed the significant decompression of the dural sac in 32 cases, with 1 case showing inadequate dural expansion. DSCA measurements confirmed progressive enlargement and stenosis reduction over time. The differences were significant (P<0.05) before operation, immediately after operation, and at 6 months after operation. At 6 months after operation, Schizas grading of spinal stenosis improved to grade A in 27 cases and grade B in 6 cases. ConclusionPosterior 180-degree decompression via UBE is a safe and feasible strategy for treating LSS combined with MSU-1 LDH, achieving effective neural decompression while preserving intervertebral disc integrity.
Objective To explore decompression strategies for lateral lumbar spinal stenosis under unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) assistance. Methods A clinical data of 86 patients with lateral lumbar stenosis treated with UBE-assisted intervertebral decompression between September 2022 and December 2023 was retrospectively analyzed. There were 42 males and 44 females with an average age of 63.6 years (range, 45-79 years). The disease duration ranged from 6 to 14 months (mean, 8.5 months). Surgical levels included L2, 3 in 3 cases, L3, 4 in 26 cases, L4, 5 in 42 cases, and L5, S1 in 15 cases. According to Lee’s grading system, there were 21 cases of grade 1, 37 cases of grade 2, and 28 cases of grade 3 for lumbar spinal stenosis. Based on the location of stenosis and clinical symptoms, the 33 cases underwent interlaminar approach, 7 cases underwent interlaminar approach with auxiliary third incision, 26 cases underwent contralateral inclinatory approach, and 20 cases underwent paraspinal approach; then, the corresponding decompression procedures were performed. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score was used to evaluate lower back/leg pain before operation and at 1 and 3 months after operation, while Oswestry disability index (ODI) was used to evaluate spinal function. At 3 months after operation, the effectiveness was evaluated using the modified MacNab evaluation criteria. The spinal stenosis and decompression were evaluated based on Lee’s grading system using lumbar MRI before operation and at 3 months after operation. ResultsAll procedures were successfully completed with mean operation time of 95.1 minutes (range, 57-166 minutes). Dural tears occurred in 2 cases treated with interlaminar approach with auxiliary third incision. All incisions healed by first intention. All patients were followed up 3-10 months (mean, 5.9 months). The clinical symptoms of the patients relieved to varying degrees. The VAS scores and ODI of lower back and leg pain at 1 and 3 months after operation significantly improved compared to preoperative levels (P<0.05), and the indicators at 3 months significantly improved than that at 1 month (P<0.05). According to the modified MacNab evaluation criteria, the effectiveness at 3 months after operation was rated as excellent in 52 cases, good in 21 cases, and poor in 13 cases, with an excellent and good rate of 84.9%. No lumbar instability was detected on flexion-extension X-ray films during follow-up. The Lee’s grading of lateral lumbar stenosis at 2 days after operation showed significant improvement compared to preoperative grading (P<0.05). ConclusionFor lateral lumbar spinal stenosis, UBE-assisted decompression of the spinal canal requires the selection of interlaminar approach, interlaminar approach with auxiliary third incision, contralateral inclinatory approach, and paraspinal approach based on preoperative imaging findings and clinical symptoms to achieve better effectiveness.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods Between November 2019 and May 2023, a total of 81 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria were enrolled. They were randomly divided into UBE-TLIF group (39 cases) and Endo-TLIF group (42 cases). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (P>0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and serum markers including creatine kinase (CK) and C reactive protein (CRP). Total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss (HBL), postoperative drainage volume, and operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Serum markers (CK, CRP) levels were compared between the two groups at 1 day before operation and 1, 3, and 5 days after operation. Furthermore, the VAS scores for low back and leg pain, and ODI at 1 day before operation and 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation, and intervertebral fusion rate at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups. Results All surgeries were completed successfully without occurrence of incision infection, vascular or nerve injury, epidural hematoma, dural tear, or postoperative paraplegia. The operation time in UBE-TLIF group was significantly shorter than that in Endo-TLIF group, but the intraoperative blood loss, TBL, and HBL in UBE-TLIF group were significantly more than those in Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between the two groups (P>0.05). The levels of CK at 1 day and 3 days after operation and CRP at 1, 3, and 5 days after operation in UBE-TLIF group were slightly higher than those in the Endo-TLIF group (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the levels of CK and CPR between the two groups at other time points (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12 months. VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation in the two groups (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups at 12 months after operation (P>0.05). ConclusionUBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF are both effective methods for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, compared to Endo-TLIF, UBE-TLIF requires further improvement in minimally invasive techniques to reduce tissue trauma and blood loss.
Objective To review the application and progress of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods The domestic and foreign literature on the application of different minimally invasive spinal decompression in the treatment of LSS was extensively reviewed, and the advantages, disadvantages, and complications of different surgical methods were summarized. ResultsAt present, minimally invasive spinal decompression mainly includes microscopic bilateral decompression, microendoscopic decompression, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression, unilateral biportal endoscopy, and so on. Compared with traditional open surgery, different minimally invasive spinal decompression techniques can reduce the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain of patients, thereby reducing hospital stay and saving treatment costs. Conclusion The indications of different minimally invasive spinal decompression are different, but there are certain advantages and disadvantages. When patients have clear surgical indications, individualized treatment plans should be formulated according to the symptoms and signs of patients, combined with imaging manifestations.