4.5 Review

Short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04138-0

Keywords

Unilateral biportal endoscopic; Minimally invasive spine surgery; Lumbar interbody fusion; Meta-analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases through meta-analysis. The results showed that UBE-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF in terms of intraoperative blood flow, postoperative drainage flow, duration of hospital stay, VAS score for low back pain and ODI score, but had a longer operative time. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of total complication rate, modified Macnab grading criteria, fusion rate, VAS score of leg pain, lumbar lordosis, intervertebral disk height. Overall, both UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are effective surgical modalities for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases, but UBE-TLIF has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and faster recovery.
BackgroundThe aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases by meta-analysis.MethodsA computer-based search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) was conducted from the inception of the each database to April 2023. The searched literature was then screened according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The critical data were extracted and analyzed using Review Manager software5.4.1. Pooled effects were calculated on the basis of data attributes by mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies.ResultsA total of 13 studies and 949 patients met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, 445 in the UBE-LIF group and 504 in the MIS-TLIF group. UBE-TLIF was superior to MIS-TLIF in terms of intraoperative blood flow, postoperative drainage flow, duration of hospital stay, VAS score for low back pain and ODI score, but the operative time was longer than MIS-TLIF group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of total complication rate, modified Macnab grading criteria, fusion rate, VAS score of leg pain, lumbar lordosis, intervertebral disk height.ConclusionBoth UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are effective surgical modalities for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases. They have similar treatment outcomes, but UBE-TLIF has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and faster recovery.Trial registration: This study has been registered at INPLASY.COM (No. INPLASY202320087).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available