Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-segment Lumbar Degenerative Disease: a Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Orthopedics
Physiology

Date 2024 Nov 22

PMID 39574056

Authors

Yanxing He

Qianyue Cheng

Jiang She

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive spine surgery has seen rapid development in recent years. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) versus minimally invasive surgery transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: In collaboration with various search terms, a comprehensive examination of the scientific literature was carried out using PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and other databases. A total of 9 studies were included retrospective cohort studies.

Results: We observed statistically significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, total hospital stay, postoperative hospital stays, and 1-month postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores between the ULIF and MIS-TLIF groups, with the ULIF group being more dominant. MIS-TLIF group was statistically more advantageous in terms of operative time. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, 3-month postoperative and final ODI scores, excellent and good rate, complications, disc heights, and lumbar lordosis angle between the two groups.

Conclusions: Treatment of single-segment LDD with ULIF and MIS-TLIF is both safe and effective. ULIF has the advantage of less intraoperative blood loss, shorter total hospital stay, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower ODI scores at 1 month postoperatively compared to MIS-TLIF. There were no significant differences between ULIF and MIS-TLIF in the treatment of LDD in terms of postoperative VAS scores, 3-month postoperative and final ODI scores, satisfaction rates, fusion rates, complications, disc heights, and lumbar lordosis angle. MIS-TLIF has a shorter procedure time than ULIF.

References

Han Q, Meng F, Chen M, Lu X, Zhao D, Wu D . Comparison Between PE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF in the Treatment of Middle-Aged and Elderly Patients with Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniation. J Pain Res. 2022; 15:1271-1282. PMC: 9064176. DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S371635. View

Zhao J, Zhang S, Li X, He B, Ou Y, Jiang D . Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Med Sci Monit. 2018; 24:8693-8698. PMC: 6286631. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.912808. View

Phani Kiran S, Sudhir G . Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - A narrative review on the present status. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021; 22:101592. PMC: 8463772. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2021.101592. View

Ao S, Zheng W, Wu J, Tang Y, Zhang C, Zhou Y . Comparison of Preliminary clinical outcomes between percutaneous endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases in a tertiary hospital: Is percutaneous endoscopic procedure superior to.... Int J Surg. 2020; 76:136-143. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.043. View

Zheng B, Zhang X, Li P . Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Using the Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Technique Compared With Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spine Diseases: Analysis of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2023; 24(6):e395-e401. PMC: 10145735. DOI: 10.1227/ons.0000000000000641. View

Gao G, Cao L, Du X, Xu B, Zhang P, Zhang X . Comparison of Minimally Invasive Surgery Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and TLIF for Treatment of Lumbar Spine Stenosis. J Healthc Eng. 2022; 2022:9389239. PMC: 8808212. DOI: 10.1155/2022/9389239. View

Huang X, Wang W, Chen G, Guan X, Zhou Y, Tang Y . 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. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023; 24(1):274. PMC: 10088165. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06374-1. View

Kim J, Yoo H, Choi D, Park E, Jee S . Comparison of Minimal Invasive Versus Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-level Lumbar Disease. Clin Spine Surg. 2021; 34(2):E64-E71. PMC: 8035997. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001024. View

Pao J, Lin S, Chen W, Chang C . Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis. J Spine Surg. 2020; 6(2):438-446. PMC: 7340817. DOI: 10.21037/jss.2020.03.08. View

10.

He Y, Wang H, Yu Z, Yin J, Jiang Y, Zhou D . Unilateral biportal endoscopic versus uniportal full-endoscopic for lumbar degenerative disease: A meta-analysis. J Orthop Sci. 2022; 29(1):49-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.jos.2022.10.019. View

11.

Karsy M, Bisson E . Surgical Versus Nonsurgical Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2019; 30(3):333-340. DOI: 10.1016/j.nec.2019.02.007. View

12.

Kim J, Choi D . Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Arthroscopy. Clin Orthop Surg. 2018; 10(2):248-252. PMC: 5964275. DOI: 10.4055/cios.2018.10.2.248. View

13.

Song X, Ren Z, Cao S, Zhou W, Hao Y . Clinical Efficacy of Bilateral Decompression Using Biportal Endoscopic Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases. World Neurosurg. 2023; 173:e371-e377. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.02.059. View

14.

Kang M, You K, Choi J, Heo D, Chung H, Park H . Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique. Spine J. 2021; 21(12):2066-2077. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.013. View

15.

Kim J, Yoo H, Choi D, Hwang J, Park E, Chung S . Learning Curve and Clinical Outcome of Biportal Endoscopic-Assisted Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Biomed Res Int. 2020; 2020:8815432. PMC: 7762649. DOI: 10.1155/2020/8815432. View

16.

Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche P, Ioannidis J . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009; 339:b2700. PMC: 2714672. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2700. View

17.

Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang Z, Li C, Zheng W, Liu J . Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J. 2010; 19(10):1780-4. PMC: 2989221. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1404-z. View

18.

Kim S, Kang S, Hong Y, Park S, Lee S . Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic technique versus open microdiscectomy for single-level lumbar discectomy: a multicenter, retrospective analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018; 13(1):22. PMC: 5793344. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-018-0725-1. View

19.

Kawaguchi Y, Gejo R, Kanamori M, Kimura T . Quantitative analysis of the effect of lumbar orthosis on trunk muscle strength and muscle activity in normal subjects. J Orthop Sci. 2002; 7(4):483-9. DOI: 10.1007/s007760200084. View

20.

Kang T, Park S, Lee S, Park J, Suh S . Assessing changes in cervical epidural pressure during biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020; 34(2):196-202. DOI: 10.3171/2020.6.SPINE20586. View