Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 25, 2026
Transtubular Endoscopic Posterolateral Decompression for L5-S1 Lumbar Lateral Disc Herniation
Published on: October 14, 2022
Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and
Zihe Feng1, Zhiheng Zhao1, Wei Cui1
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Gongti South Rd, No. 8, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100020, China.
Purpose:
This study aimed to compare unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) with microdiscectomy (MD) for treating lumbar disk herniation (LDH).
Methods:
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Web of Science databases from database inception to April 2023 to identify studies comparing UBED and MD for treating LDH. This study evaluated the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Macnab scores, operation time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and complications, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Macnab scores at various pre- and post-surgery stages. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.
Results:
The meta-analysis included 9 distinct studies with a total of 1001 patients. The VAS scores for low back pain showed no significant differences between the groups at postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.09) and final follow-up (P = 0.13); however, the UBED group had lower VAS scores at postoperative 1-3 days (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in leg pain VAS scores at baseline (P = 0.05), postoperative 1-3 days (P = 0.24), postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.78), or at the final follow-up (P = 0.43). ODI comparisons revealed no significant differences preoperatively (P = 0.83), at postoperative 1 week (P = 0.47), or postoperative 1-3 months (P = 0.13), and the UBED group demonstrated better ODI at the final follow-up (P = 0.03). The UBED group also exhibited a shorter mean operative time (P = 0.03), significantly shorter hospital stay (P < 0.00001), and less estimated blood loss (P = 0.0002). Complications and modified MacNab scores showed no significant differences between the groups (P = 0.56 and P = 0.05, respectively).
Conclusion:
The evidence revealed no significant differences in efficacy between UBED and MD for LDH treatment. However, UBED may offer potential benefits such as shorter hospital stays, lower estimated blood loss, and comparable complication rates.
