[Efficacy comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and extended interlaminar fenestration for...

Objective: To analyze and compare the clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic(UBE) decompression and extended interlaminar fenestration for lumbar lateral recess stenosis. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 103 patients treated with UBE decompression or extended interlaminar fenestration for lumbar lateral recess stenosis from July 2017 to June 2020 in the Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University was performed. Eighty patients aged 40 to 86 (63.2±9.8) years were included in this study, including 42 males and 38 females. Forty patients received UBE decompression (UBE group) and 40 patients received extended interlaminar fenestration (fenestration group). Operative time, length of incision, hospital stay and complications were recorded. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) scores were recorded preoperatively and at 1, 3 and 6 months after the operation and at the final follow-up, and the modified Macnab scale was used to evaluate the clinical efficacy at the final follow-up. Results: Patients in both groups successfully received lumbar lateral recess decompression and were followed up for (12.9±5.4) months in the UBE group and (14.9±3.5) months in the fenestration group, respectively. The operation time in the UBE group was (63.9±11.6) min, it was higher than that in the fenestration group ((54.1±9.2) min, P<0.001). The average incision length in the UBE group was (18.2±1.7) mm, it was lower than that in the fenestration group ((73.5±11.6) mm, P<0.001). Postoperative hospital stay in the UBE group was (4.1±2.2) d, it was lower than that in the fenestration group ((7.6±3.1) d, P<0.001). VAS scores of low back pain were improved after operation in both groups. Low back pain VAS scores of UBE group were lower than those in fenestration group at 1 and 3 months post operation (both P<0.05). The VAS scores of lower limb pain were improved after operation in both groups and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at postoperative 1, 3, 6 months after the operation and at the last follow-up (all P>0.05). ODI scores were improved after operation in both groups. ODI scores of UBE group were lower than those in fenestration group at postoperative 1 month and 3 months(both P<0.05). Intraoperative dural tear occurred in 2 cases(5.0%) in the UBE group and 1 case(2.5%) in the fenestration group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P=0.556). According to the modified Macnab scale at the last follow-up, 35 cases were excellent, 3 cases were good, and 2 cases were fair in the UBE group, and 37 cases were excellent, 2 cases were good, and 1 case was fair in the open group. The difference was not statistically significant between the two groups (P=0.745). Conclusion: Compared with the extended interlaminar fenestration, UBE technique can not only reduce the early postoperative low back pain, shorten hospital stay, but also achieve the same long-term clinical efficacy with less trauma.