Kalanchiam Guna Pratheep, Kaliya-Perumal Arun-Kumar, Sampath Lokesh, Boey Elijah Tzen Hsuen, Oh Jacob Yoong-Leong
Division of Spine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
Division of Spine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai, India.
Global Spine J. 2025 May 30:21925682251346413. doi: 10.1177/21925682251346413.
Study DesignScoping review.ObjectiveTo review the literature on complications related to uniportal and unilateral biportal endoscopic techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis, identify areas needing further clarification, and enhance the understanding of these techniques.MethodologyA scoping review was conducted in September 2024 across five databases (Google Scholar, Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science) on complications related to uniportal and unilateral biportal interlaminar endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Descriptive characteristics, trends, and regional distribution of studies were summarized. Study types, findings, and complications for each technique were tabulated. A comparison of complication rates was performed between the two techniques to assess their relative safety and outcomes.ResultsA total of 38 studies involving 2426 patients (17 Uniportal, 17 Biportal, 4 comparing both) were analyzed, with L4-L5 being the most common level operated. The overall complication rate was 2.7% for uniportal and 2.2% for biportal, with reporting inconsistencies noted. Persistent symptoms after surgical decompression were more common in the uniportal group ( = 0.003), while postoperative headaches were higher in the biportal group ( = 0.007). However, the number of studies reporting these complications was limited.ConclusionBoth uniportal and unilateral biportal endoscopic techniques are effective for lumbar spinal canal decompression, with no significant difference in complication rates. However, inconsistent reporting across studies limits meaningful meta-analyses. Future research should standardize the reporting of complications to ensure more reliable results and improve research quality.
研究设计
范围综述。
目的
回顾关于单通道和单侧双通道内镜技术治疗腰椎管狭窄症相关并发症的文献,确定需要进一步阐明的领域,并增进对这些技术的理解。
方法
2024年9月对五个数据库(谷歌学术、医学索引、荷兰医学文摘数据库、美国国立医学图书馆医学期刊数据库和科学引文索引)进行了范围综述,内容涉及单通道和单侧双通道椎间孔镜下腰椎管减压术的相关并发症。总结了研究的描述性特征、趋势和区域分布。将每种技术的研究类型、结果和并发症制成表格。对两种技术的并发症发生率进行比较,以评估它们的相对安全性和疗效。
结果
共分析了38项研究,涉及2426例患者(单通道组17项研究,双通道组17项研究,4项研究对两者进行了比较),最常手术的节段是L4-L5。单通道技术的总体并发症发生率为2.7%,双通道技术为2.2%,存在报告不一致的情况。手术减压后持续症状在单通道组更为常见(P = 0.003),而双通道组术后头痛发生率更高(P = 0.007)。然而,报告这些并发症的研究数量有限。
结论
单通道和单侧双通道内镜技术对腰椎管减压均有效,并发症发生率无显著差异。然而,各研究报告不一致限制了有意义的荟萃分析。未来的研究应规范并发症报告,以确保获得更可靠的结果并提高研究质量。