Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for single l4/5‐level lumbar disk herniation. Issue 2 (8th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hao, Jie; Cheng, Jiaqi; Xue, Huawei; Zhang, Feng
• Is Part Of: Pain practice. Volume 22:Issue 2(2022)
• Page Start: 191
• Page End: 199
• Publication Date: 2021-10-08
• Subjects: minimally invasive surgery -- percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy -- single L4/5‐level lumbar disk herniation -- unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy; Pain -- Treatment -- Periodicals; 616.0472
• DOI: 10.1111/papr.13078
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1530-7085

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: The purpose of this research was to investigate the outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the single L4/5‐level lumbar disk herniation (sLDH). Methods: From January 2018 to January 2021, a total of 40 patients with sLDH were retrospectively analyzed in this study. All the patients had received spinal surgeries in Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University and Affiliated Nantong Hospital 3 of Nantong University. Among them, 20 patients were treated with PELD (PELD group), and 20 patients were treated with UBE discectomy (UBE group). Postoperative length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, operation time, and clinical complications of the patients were compared between the two groups. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were measured before surgeries and 3 days, 1, and 6 months after surgeries. Results: Compared with the UBE group, the PELD group had obviously less intraoperative blood loss, shorter operative time, and shorter hospital stay. The differences in the rate of complications were not statistically significant between the two groups. The VAS score and the ODI score of the two groups had a great reduction after operation. In addition, both the groups had satisfactory clinical outcome; the VAS score and ODI of the PELD group decreased more obviously. Conclusion: The UBE for sLDH yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD as minimally invasive surgeries; however, PELD is superior to UBE in terms of intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative hospitalization, and short‐term postoperative pain relief. The advantages and disadvantages of the two surgeries should be circumspectly balanced when evaluating a patient for a minimally invasive surgery for sLDH, selecting the most appropriate surgical method for patients.