• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

单侧双通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术与传统椎间融合术治疗退变性腰椎疾病的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, 233030, Anhui, China.

Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, 314001, Zhejiang, China.

出版信息

BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023 Oct 24;24(1):838. doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06949-y.

DOI:10.1186/s12891-023-06949-y
PMID:37875873
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10594799/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis compares the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) to conventional interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).

METHODS

An extensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Research related to UBE-TLIF published up to November 2022 was reviewed. The relevant articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as an evaluation of the quality of the data extraction literature. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included six high-quality case-control trials (CCTs) involving 621 subjects. The clinical outcomes assessment showed no statistical differences in complication rates, fusion rates, leg pain VAS scores, or ODI scores. After UBE-TLIF, low back pain VAS scores were significantly improved with less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. A longer time was required for UBE-TLIF, however.

CONCLUSION

Despite the lack of sufficient high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this study, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that UBE-TLIF is more effective than open surgery in terms of length of stay, blood loss reduction during surgery, and improved low back pain after surgery. Nevertheless, the evidence will be supplemented in the future by more and better quality multicenter randomized controlled trials.

摘要

背景

本荟萃分析比较了单侧双通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎间融合术(UBE-TLIF)与传统椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病(LDD)的疗效。

方法

在 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library 中进行了广泛的文献检索。综述了截至 2022 年 11 月发表的有关 UBE-TLIF 的研究。根据纳入和排除标准以及对数据提取文献质量的评估,选择相关文章。使用 Review Manager 5.3 软件进行荟萃分析。

结果

本荟萃分析纳入了 6 项高质量的病例对照试验(CCT),共 621 例患者。临床结果评估显示,并发症发生率、融合率、腿痛 VAS 评分或 ODI 评分无统计学差异。UBE-TLIF 后,腰痛 VAS 评分显著改善,术中出血量减少,住院时间缩短。但 UBE-TLIF 需要更长的时间。

结论

尽管本研究缺乏足够的高质量随机对照试验(RCT),但荟萃分析的结果表明,UBE-TLIF 在住院时间、手术期间出血量减少和术后腰痛改善方面优于开放手术。然而,未来将通过更多和更好质量的多中心随机对照试验来补充证据。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/8e7087c20d33/12891_2023_6949_Fig8_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/3ce0b4c867a3/12891_2023_6949_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/481b550c51f9/12891_2023_6949_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/203748676820/12891_2023_6949_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/e96a7a39549e/12891_2023_6949_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/11ecb9ab84d1/12891_2023_6949_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/a921b9bc104c/12891_2023_6949_Fig6_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/acf72947f981/12891_2023_6949_Fig7_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/8e7087c20d33/12891_2023_6949_Fig8_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/3ce0b4c867a3/12891_2023_6949_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/481b550c51f9/12891_2023_6949_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/203748676820/12891_2023_6949_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/e96a7a39549e/12891_2023_6949_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/11ecb9ab84d1/12891_2023_6949_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/a921b9bc104c/12891_2023_6949_Fig6_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/acf72947f981/12891_2023_6949_Fig7_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/20f2/10594799/8e7087c20d33/12891_2023_6949_Fig8_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.单侧双通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术与传统椎间融合术治疗退变性腰椎疾病的系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023 Oct 24;24(1):838. doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06949-y.
2
Short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.单侧双通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎间融合术与微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗腰椎退变性疾病的短期临床疗效及安全性的系统评价和 Meta 分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2023 Sep 4;18(1):656. doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-04138-0.
3
[Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive tubular transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease].单侧双孔通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术与微创管状经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退变性疾病的比较
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022 May 15;36(5):592-599. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202201005.
4
[Prospective comparative study of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis].[单侧双孔通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术与内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术治疗单节段退变性腰椎管狭窄症伴腰椎滑脱的前瞻性对比研究]
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2024 May 15;38(5):521-528. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202402058.
5
Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion verse 3D microscope-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study with 24-month follow-up.单侧双通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术与 3D 显微镜辅助下经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗单节段腰椎滑脱伴腰椎管狭窄的临床对比:一项 24 个月随访的回顾性研究。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2023 Dec 8;18(1):943. doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-04401-4.
6
Comparing the efficacy and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopic fusion versus minimally invasive fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and mate-analysis.比较单侧双孔椎间孔镜融合术与微创融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效及并发症:一项系统评价与Meta分析
Eur Spine J. 2023 Apr;32(4):1345-1357. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07588-6. Epub 2023 Mar 3.
7
Comparing the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.单侧双通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎间融合术与微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗腰椎退变性疾病的疗效比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2023 Nov 22;18(1):888. doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-04393-1.
8
Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique.经皮双侧双通道内镜技术与传统显微镜下经椎间孔入路腰椎间融合术的对比研究
Spine J. 2021 Dec;21(12):2066-2077. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.013. Epub 2021 Jun 23.
9
Comparison of Fusion Rate and Clinical Outcomes in Minimally Invasive and Conventional Posterior Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.微创与传统后路融合治疗腰椎退变性疾病的融合率及临床结局比较:网状 Meta 分析。
World Neurosurg. 2024 Sep;189:357-372.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2024.06.031. Epub 2024 Jun 12.
10
Comparison of surgical invasiveness, hidden blood loss, and clinical outcome between unilateral biportal endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective cohort study.单侧双通道内镜与微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗腰椎退变性疾病的手术侵袭性、隐性失血及临床疗效比较:一项回顾性队列研究。
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023 Apr 10;24(1):274. doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06374-1.

引用本文的文献

1
Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis.单侧双孔通道内镜下腰椎椎间融合术与后路腰椎椎间融合术治疗双侧腰椎管狭窄症的比较
Front Surg. 2025 Jun 30;12:1533458. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2025.1533458. eCollection 2025.
2
Comparison of different treatments for lumbar disc herniation: a network meta-analysis and systematic review.腰椎间盘突出症不同治疗方法的比较:网状Meta分析与系统评价
BMC Surg. 2025 Jul 3;25(1):259. doi: 10.1186/s12893-025-02992-9.
3
Comparison of clinical effects of endoscopic powered osteotome and endoscopic powered drill for UBE-TLIF surgery.

本文引用的文献

1
[Learning curve analysis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion].[单侧双门内镜下腰椎椎间融合术的学习曲线分析]
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022 Oct 15;36(10):1229-1233. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202205139.
2
Clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).单侧双通道内镜下腰椎间融合术(ULIF)与传统后路腰椎间融合术(PLIF)的临床疗效比较。
Spine J. 2023 Feb;23(2):271-280. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.10.001. Epub 2022 Oct 15.
3
Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Note and an Outcome Comparison with the Conventional Minimally Invasive Fusion.
关节镜下动力骨凿与关节镜下动力钻用于UBE-TLIF手术的临床效果比较。
Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 1;15(1):21715. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-08214-9.
4
Comparison of efficacy and safety between unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus uniportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.单侧双通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术与单通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效与安全性比较:一项系统评价与Meta分析
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024 Dec 19;25(1):1037. doi: 10.1186/s12891-024-08146-x.
5
Comparative efficacy and fusion outcomes of unilateral bi-portal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating single-segment degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a two-year retrospective study.单侧双孔道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术与微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术治疗单节段退变性腰椎滑脱症合并腰椎管狭窄症的疗效及融合结果比较:一项为期两年的回顾性研究
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Dec 19;19(1):835. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-05315-5.
6
Multiple Endoscopic Access Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MALIF): A New Technique for Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Monoportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery Techniques.多内镜通道腰椎椎间融合术(MALIF):一种使用单通道内镜脊柱手术技术的单侧双孔道内镜腰椎椎间融合新技术。
Cureus. 2024 Dec 1;16(12):e74942. doi: 10.7759/cureus.74942. eCollection 2024 Dec.
7
A Novel Unilateral Bi/Multi-Portal Endoscopic Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Utilizing Uniaxial Spinal Endoscope Instead of Arthroscope: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Results.一种新型的单侧双/多通道内镜下经椎间孔椎体间融合术,使用单轴脊柱内镜而非关节镜:技术说明及初步临床结果
Orthop Surg. 2025 Jan;17(1):192-201. doi: 10.1111/os.14286. Epub 2024 Nov 4.
8
Effect of Cage Material and Size on Fusion Rate and Subsidence Following Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.椎间融合器材料和尺寸对双门内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术后融合率及下沉的影响
Neurospine. 2024 Sep;21(3):973-983. doi: 10.14245/ns.2448244.122. Epub 2024 Sep 30.
9
Evaluation of the learning curve and complications in unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: cumulative sum analysis and risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis.单侧双通道内镜下经椎间孔腰椎间融合术学习曲线和并发症的评估:累积和分析和风险调整累积和分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Mar 21;19(1):194. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04674-3.
10
Innovative Developments in Lumbar Interbody Cage Materials and Design: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.腰椎椎间融合器材料与设计的创新进展:一篇全面的叙述性综述
Asian Spine J. 2024 Jun;18(3):444-457. doi: 10.31616/asj.2023.0407. Epub 2023 Dec 26.
单侧双孔道内镜下腰椎椎间融合术:技术要点及与传统微创融合术的疗效比较
Orthop Res Rev. 2021 Nov 24;13:229-239. doi: 10.2147/ORR.S336479. eCollection 2021.
4
Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique.经皮双侧双通道内镜技术与传统显微镜下经椎间孔入路腰椎间融合术的对比研究
Spine J. 2021 Dec;21(12):2066-2077. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.013. Epub 2021 Jun 23.
5
Comparison of endoscopic spine surgery and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: A meta-analysis.内镜脊柱手术与微创经椎间孔腰椎间融合术治疗退行性腰椎疾病的比较:一项荟萃分析。
J Clin Neurosci. 2021 Jun;88:5-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2021.03.030. Epub 2021 Mar 29.
6
Comparison of Minimal Invasive Versus Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-level Lumbar Disease.微创与双通道内窥镜经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术治疗单节段腰椎疾病的比较。
Clin Spine Surg. 2021 Mar 1;34(2):E64-E71. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001024.
7
Which is the most effective treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis: Decompression, fusion, or interspinous process device? A Bayesian network meta-analysis.腰椎管狭窄症最有效的治疗方法是什么:减压、融合还是棘突间装置?一项贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。
J Orthop Translat. 2020 Sep 26;26:45-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jot.2020.07.003. eCollection 2021 Jan.
8
Perspectives on the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Degeneration: The Value Proposition for a Cell-Based Therapy, Immunomodulatory Properties of Discogenic Cells and the Associated Clinical Evaluation Strategy.腰椎间盘退变的治疗前景:基于细胞疗法的价值主张、椎间盘源性细胞的免疫调节特性及相关临床评估策略
Front Surg. 2020 Dec 16;7:554382. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2020.554382. eCollection 2020.
9
Learning Curve and Clinical Outcome of Biportal Endoscopic-Assisted Lumbar Interbody Fusion.双通道内窥镜辅助腰椎体间融合术的学习曲线和临床结果。
Biomed Res Int. 2020 Dec 17;2020:8815432. doi: 10.1155/2020/8815432. eCollection 2020.
10
Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Versus Open Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.经皮椎间孔内镜椎间盘切除术与开放显微椎间盘切除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症的系统评价和 Meta 分析。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021 Apr 15;46(8):538-549. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003843.