Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 16, 2025
Author Spotlight: Unveiling the Potential of TUBE Technique in Spinal Surgery
Published on: November 17, 2023
One-hole split endoscopy technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy technique for L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation:
Yuhong Zhang1, Bo Feng2, Peng Hu3
1Department of Spine Surgery, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, No. 661, Huanghe Er Road, Binzhou, 256603, Shandong, China.
Background:
Lumbar disk herniation (LDH) is one of the most common diseases of the spine, especially occurring in L4-5 and L5-S1 intervertebral disks, and surgery is a choice when conservative treatment is ineffective. The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical efficacy and radiologic outcomes of one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) technique versus unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique in the treatment of L5-S1 lumbar disk herniation (LDH).
Methods:
A total of 133 patients of a single center surgically treated for L5-S1 LDH between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively included in this study, of which 70 were treated by UBE technique and the rest were treated by OSE technique. Hospitalization time, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy times, incision length and related complications were recorded. Bone resection area (BRA), articular process resection rate, range of motion (ROM), sagittal translation (ST), disk height (DH), Visual Analog Score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Macnab criteria were used to evaluated the clinical efficacy.
Results:
There was no statistically significant difference in hospitalization time or fluoroscopy times between the two groups. The operation time was shorter in the UBE group than that in the OSE group; however, the incision length was longer. Intraoperative blood loss and BRA were larger in the UBE group than in the OSE group. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, DH, or postoperative facet resection rate between the two groups. There was no significant difference in ROM, ST, or postoperative facet resection rate compared with preoperative indicators in each group, but there was a significant difference in DH among distinct groups. At any time point, the lower back and leg VAS and ODI in each group were significantly improved compared to those before the operation, with no significant difference between the two groups. There was one case of dural tear in the UBE group. One case of transient hypoesthesia occurred in each of the two groups. The excellent-good rates of the UBE group and the OSE group were 88.6% and 90.5%, respectively.
Conclusion:
The OSE technique is an effective minimally invasive surgical option as well as the UBE technique in the treatment of L5-S1 LDH.
