Scholarlink

Objectives <p>The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for lumbar spondylolisthesis.</p> Methods <p>The patients were divided into MIS-TLIF group and UBE-TLIF group according to the surgical procedures. The two groups were compared in terms of surgery-related parameters, postoperative functional scores and complications.</p> Results <p>Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the UBE-TLIF group had a longer surgical time, less intraoperative and postoperative blood loss, and less length of stay (LOS) (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Comparison of visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at each postoperative time point between the two groups showed no statistically significant difference (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). At the final follow-up, the lumbar lordosis (LL) and Cobb angle were improved in both groups compared with the preoperative period, but the difference between the pre- and postoperative of the two groups was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). The intervertebral fusion of the two groups was compared at each postoperative time point, and the difference was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). During the follow-up period, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of complication rate (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05).</p> Conclusion <p>In the treatment of mild lumbar spondylolisthesis, UBE-TLIF can achieve satisfactory short-term results comparable to MED-assisted MIS-TLIF. Compared with MED-assisted MIS-TLIF, UBE-TLIF has the advantages of less perioperative bleeding, shorter LOS, and faster early postoperative recovery, despite the longer surgical time.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of short-term effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic and MED-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for mild single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月4日

查看全文
  • Yu He,
  • Jin-wang Liu,
  • Miao Fang,
  • Ming-juan He,
  • Ding Hu,
  • Xiao-ping Xu

摘要

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) with microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Methods

The patients were divided into MIS-TLIF group and UBE-TLIF group according to the surgical procedures. The two groups were compared in terms of surgery-related parameters, postoperative functional scores and complications.

Results

Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the UBE-TLIF group had a longer surgical time, less intraoperative and postoperative blood loss, and less length of stay (LOS) (p < 0.001). Comparison of visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at each postoperative time point between the two groups showed no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). At the final follow-up, the lumbar lordosis (LL) and Cobb angle were improved in both groups compared with the preoperative period, but the difference between the pre- and postoperative of the two groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The intervertebral fusion of the two groups was compared at each postoperative time point, and the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). During the follow-up period, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of complication rate (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

In the treatment of mild lumbar spondylolisthesis, UBE-TLIF can achieve satisfactory short-term results comparable to MED-assisted MIS-TLIF. Compared with MED-assisted MIS-TLIF, UBE-TLIF has the advantages of less perioperative bleeding, shorter LOS, and faster early postoperative recovery, despite the longer surgical time.