Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2025
Author Spotlight: Scope of LE-ULBD as a Safe, Effective, and Minimally Invasive Approach to Treat Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Published on: February 9, 2024
Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression with Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar
Yuxian Chen1, Wei Lin1, Shenglin Lei2
1The First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Objective:
Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (UBED) offers the advantages of minimal tissue damage, operational flexibility, and clear visualization, positioning it as an innovative and minimally invasive endoscopic technique. Nevertheless, the clinical evidence supporting the use of UBED in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases is limited and conflicting.
Methods:
As of October 1, 2023, a comprehensive search was conducted across databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify all published studies on minimally invasive UBED for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Data pertaining to patient demographics, fluoroscopy time, operative duration, intraoperative hemorrhage, hospitalization length, visual analog scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, MacNab criteria, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complication rates were extracted. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was utilized to assess the quality.
Results:
Twelve articles were included, involving 816 patients. The back VAS score (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.09-0.07, P = 0.75), MacNab criteria (95% CI: 0.52-2.3, P = 0.82), fluoroscopy time (95% CI: -7.03 to -0.4, P = 0.08), and the incidence of complications (95% CI: 0.5-1.73, P = 0.82) were not significantly different, while the leg VAS score (95% CI: 0.01-0.18, P = 0.03), ODI score (95% CI: -1.03 to -0.09, P = 0.02), operation time (95% CI: 5.76-20.62, P = 0.0005), hospitalization length (95% CI: 0.41-2.76, P = 0.008), and intraoperative hemorrhage (95% CI: 21.92-72.44, P = 0.0003) were significantly different.
Conclusions:
UBED offers superiority in ODI, flexibility, and visual field clarity. Conversely, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression presents advantages in terms of operation duration, blood loss, hospitalization length, and leg VAS score. These factors should be thoroughly considered when selecting a surgical approach.
