Clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus microendoscopic discectomy in treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a Meta-analysis
10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20210916-00414
- VernacularTitle:单侧双通道脊柱内镜与显微内镜下减压术治疗腰椎管狭窄症疗效的Meta分析
- Author:
Shaojie HE
1
;
Dingsheng ZHA
;
Jiawen HUANG
;
Zhenyu ZHAO
;
Sheng TANG
;
Xiaofeng LAI
;
Hao WU
Author Information
1. 暨南大学附属第一医院骨科，广州 510630
- Keywords:
Spinal Stenosis;
Surgical Endoscopy;
Meta-analysis;
Microendoscopic;
Unilateral biportal endoscopy
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2022;24(7):634-639
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis by Meta-analysis.Methods:PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI and Wanfang Data were searched from their establishment to January 2021 for all the studies on UBE and MED in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The data extracted were authors, year of publication, study design, subject characteristics, sample size, surgical protocol, age, sex ratio, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, complications, visual analogue scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The Meta-analysis was conducted with software Revman 5.3 to analyze the operation time, hospital stay, complication rate, waist and lower extremity VAS scores and ODI scores at preoperation, early postoperation and the last follow-up. The quality of the case-control studies included was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) while the methodological quality and risk of bias of the randomized controlled studies (RCT) included were evaluated using the Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool.Results:Finally, 7 studies were included, 6 in English and one in Chinese. There were 2 RCTs and 5 case-control studies. There were 251 patients in the UBE group and 224 patients in the MED group. Compared with the MED group, the UBE group had a significantly shorter hospital stay ( MD=-2.28, 95% CI: -3.42 to -1.14, P<0.001), and a significantly lower VAS score for early postoperative low back pain ( MD=-0.80, 95% CI:-1.44 to -0.16, P=0.01). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in operation time, complication rate, waist VAS scores at preoperation or the last follow-up, lower extremity VAS or ODI scores at preoperation, early postoperation or the last follow-up, or dural dilatation area ( P>0.05). Conclusions:In the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, compared with MED, UBE is superior in early relief of low back pain and hospital stay after operation, but shows no significant difference in long-term efficacy or safety.
