For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
6
views
29
references
 Top references
cited by
2
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      935
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Background:

          The purpose of this study was to analyze unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

          Methods:

          PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched online. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA 16.0.

          Results:

          The selection criteria were met by 6 studies with a total of 281 patients (142 cases in the UBE group and 139 cases in the PELD group) and good methodological quality. PELD has the potential to improve outcomes such as operation time and intraoperative hemorrhage (MD = 36.808, 95% CI (23.766, 49.850), P = .000; MD = 59.269, 95% CI (21.527, 97.010), P = .000) compared with UBE. No differences were found in the back pain VAS score at preoperative (MD = −0.024, 95% CI [−0.572, 0.092], P = .998), at 1 day after operation (MD = −0.300, 95% CI [−0.845, 0.246], P = .878), the VAS score of leg pain at preoperative (MD = −0.099, 95% CI [−0.417, 0.220], P = .762), at 1 day after operation (MD = 0.843, 95% CI [0.193, 1.492], P = .420), at 1 month after operation (MD = −0.027, 95% CI [−0.433, 0.380], P = .386), at 6 months after operation (MD = 0.122, 95% CI [−0.035, 0.278], P = .946), hospital stay (MD = 3.708, 95% CI [3.202, 4.214], P = .000) and other clinical effects between UBE and PELD group.

          Conclusions:

          There are no significant differences in clinical efficacy between UBE and PELD, according to the research. However, PELD has the potential to improve outcomes such as operation time and intraoperative hemorrhage. As just a result, PELD is better suited in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)
          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
          Article 0 comments Cited 13244 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal lumbar discectomy versus conventional microsurgical technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.

            Georgios Godolias, Martin Komp, Sebastian Ruetten … (2008)
            Prospective, randomized, controlled study of patients with lumbar disc herniations, operated either in a full-endoscopic or microsurgical technique. Comparison of results of lumbar discectomies in full-endoscopic interlaminar and transforaminal technique with the conventional microsurgical technique. Even with good results, conventional disc operations may result in subsequent damage due to trauma. Endoscopic techniques have become the standard in many areas because of the advantages they offer intraoperatively and after surgery. With the transforaminal and interlaminar techniques, 2 full-endoscopic procedures are available for lumbar disc operations. One hundred seventy-eight patients with full-endoscopic or microsurgical discectomy underwent follow-up for 2 years. In addition to general and specific parameters, the following measuring instruments were used: VAS, German version North American Spine Society Instrument, Oswestry Low-Back Pain Disability Questionnaire. After surgery 82% of the patients no longer had leg pain, and 14% had occasional pain. The clinical results were the same in both groups. The recurrence rate was 6.2% with no difference between the groups. The full-endoscopic techniques brought significant advantages in the following areas: back pain, rehabilitation, complications, and traumatization. The clinical results of the full-endoscopic technique are equal to those of the microsurgical technique. At the same time, there are advantages in the operation technique and reduced traumatization. With the surgical devices and the possibility of selecting an interlaminar or posterolateral to lateral transforaminal procedure, lumbar disc herniations outside and inside the spinal canal can be sufficiently removed using the full-endoscopic technique, when taking the appropriate criteria into account. Full-endoscopic surgery is a sufficient and safe supplementation and alternative to microsurgical procedures.
            Article 0 comments Cited 197 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Transforaminal posterolateral endoscopic discectomy with or without the combination of a low-dose chymopapain: a prospective randomized study in 280 consecutive cases.

              T Hoogland, A. Ramirez, Boris Miklitz … (2006)
              A prospective randomized study involving 280 consecutive cases of lumbar disc herniation managed either by an endoscopic discectomy alone or an endoscopic discectomy combined with an intradiscal injection of a low dose (1000 U) of chymopapain. To compare outcome, complications, and reherniations of both techniques. Despite a low complication rate, posterolateral endoscopic nucleotomy has made a lengthy evolution because of an assumed limited indication. Chemonucleolysis, however, proven to be safe and effective, has not continued to be accepted by the majority in the spinal community as microdiscectomy is considered to be more reliable. A total of 280 consecutive patients with a primary herniated, including sequestrated, lumbar disc with predominant leg pain, was randomized. A clinical follow-up was performed at 3 months, and at 1 and 2 years after the index operation with an extensive questionnaire, including the visual analog scale for pain and the MacNab criteria. The cohort integrity at 3 months was 100%, at 1 year 96%, and at 2 years 92%. At the 3-month evaluation, only minor complications were registered. At 1-year postoperatively, group 1 (endoscopy alone) had a recurrence rate of 6.9% compared to group 2 (the combination therapy), with a recurrence rate of 1.6%, which was a statistically significant difference in favor of the combination therapy (P = 0045). At the 2-year follow-up, group 1 reported that 85.4% had an excellent or good result, 6.9% a fair result, and 7.7% were not satisfied. At the 2-year follow-up, group 2 reported that 93.3% had an excellent or good result, 2.5% a fair result, and 4.2% were not satisfied. This outcome was statistically significant in favor of the group including chymopapain. There were no infections or patients with any form of permanent iatrogenic nerve damage, and no patients had a major complication. A high percentage of patient satisfaction could be obtained with a posterior lateral endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation, and a statistically significant improvement of the results was obtained when an intradiscal injection of 1000 U of chymopapain was added. There was a low recurrence rate with no major complications. The method can be applied in any type of lumbar disc herniation, including the L5-S1 level.
              Article 0 comments Cited 102 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Xu Ma
                Shangju Gao
                Can Cao
                Chuntao Li
                Liang He
                Meng Li
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Medicine (Baltimore)
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Medicine (Baltimore)
                Journal ID (publisher-id): MD
                Title: Medicine
                Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                ISSN (Print): 0025-7974
                ISSN (Electronic): 1536-5964
                Publication date Collection: 30 September 2022
                Publication date (Electronic): 30 September 2022
                Volume: 101
                Issue: 39
                Electronic Location Identifier: e30412
                Affiliations
                [a ] Hebei North University, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, China
                [b ] Spinal Surgery Medical Team of Orthopedics, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China
                [c ] Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
                Author notes
                *Correspondence: Wenyi Li, Spinal Surgery Medical Team of Orthopedics, Hebei General Hospital, 348#Hepingxi Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China (e-mail: liwenyi71@ 123456163.com ).
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7334-9081
                Article
                Accession ID: 00012
                DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030612
                PMC ID: 9524944
                PubMed ID: 36181014
                SO-VID: 7008af95-e216-45e4-8206-f67c9e639a01
                Copyright © Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 09 April 2022
                Date received : 15 August 2022
                Date accepted : 16 August 2022
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article
                Subject: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
                Custom metadata
                OPEN-ACCESS TRUE

                Keywords: lumbar disc herniation,minimally invasive surgery,percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy,treatment outcome,unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy
                Data availability:
                Keywords: lumbar disc herniation, minimally invasive surgery, percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy, treatment outcome, unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content935

                See all similar

                Cited by2

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors571

                See all reference authors