"Early Efficacy and Safety of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Minimal Invasive in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases".

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the early clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Along with the continuous development of endoscopic technology, the early safety and effectiveness of ULIF technology are still unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 61 patients who underwent fusion surgery through ULIF or MIS-TLIF in 2021. Twenty-nine patients underwent ULIF (group A), and 32 underwent MIS-TLIF (group B). Fusion rate, bone graft volume, hidden blood loss (HBL), C-reactive protein level, operative time, Oswestry Disability Index , Visual Analog Scale score, and MacNab criteria were assessed in both groups.

RESULTS

The Visual Analog Scale score for back pain in the early postoperative period was significantly lower in group A than in group B ( P <0.05). All other clinical scores showed improvement, with no significant difference between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative C-reactive protein levels and fusion rates between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). However, HBL was higher and operative time was longer in group A than in group B ( P <0.05). Most importantly, there were no statistically significant differences between groups A and B in fusion rate, length of stay and bone graft volume ( P >0.05). No serious surgical complications occurred in our study.

CONCLUSIONS

ULIF is a new option for lumbar fusion. Despite the drawbacks of longer operation time and higher HBL, ULIF may be a viable alternative to MIS-TLIF as technology advances.