Decompression via unilateral biportal endoscopy for severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: A comparative study with decompression via open discectomy

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that the Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy is an effective and safety surgery for sufficient decompression of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. However, data are lacking in terms of its benefits when compared with conventional open lumbar discectomy (OLD), especially in patients with severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). AimTo compare the clini cal outcomes of two types decompressive surgery: unilateral biportal endoscopy-unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (UBE-ULBD) and conventional open lumbar discectomy (OLD) in severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent UBE-ULBD (n = 50, operated at 50 levels; UBE-ULBD group) and conventional open lumbar discectomy (n = 59, operated at 47 levels; OLD group) between February 2019 and July 2021. All patients were diagnosed with severe stenosis based on the Schizas classification (Grade C or D) on MRI. We compared radiographic and clinical outcome scores [including the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ)] between the 2 groups at 1 year of follow-up. The radiographic evaluation included the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the thecal sac and paraspinal muscles on MRI. Fasting blood was drawn before and 1 and 7 days after the operation to detect creatine kinase (CK). Surgical data perioperative complications were also investigated. ResultsThe baseline demographic data of the 2 groups were comparable, including VAS, ODI and ZCQ scores, the cross-sectional area of the thecal sac and paraspinal muscles and creatine kinase levels. The dural sac CSA significantly increased post -operatively in both groups, which confirmed they benefited from comparable decompressive effects. The operative duration in the OLD group was less than the UBE-ULBD group (43.9 +/- 5.6 min vs. 74.2 +/- 9.3 min, p < 0.05). The OLD group was associated with more estimated blood loss than the UBE-ULBD group (111.2 +/- 25.0 ml vs. 41.5 +/- 22.2 ml, P < 0.05). The length of hospital stay (HS) was significantly longer in the OLD group than in the UBE-ULBD group (6.8 +/- 1.6 vs. 4.0 +/- 1.4 days, P < 0.05). The VAS, ODI, and ZCQ scores improved in both groups after the operation. Serum creatine kinase values in the UBE-ULBD group were significantly lower than in the OLD group at 1 day after surgery (108. 1 +/- 11.9 vs. 347.0 +/- 19.5 U/L, P < 0.05). The degree of paraspinal muscle atrophy in the UBE-ULBD group was significantly lower than in the OLD group at 1 year (4.50 +/- 0.60 vs. 11.42 +/- 0.87, P < 0.05). ConclusionsUBE-ULBD and conventional OLD demonstrate comparable short-term clinical outcomes in treating severe DLSS. However, UBE-ULBD surgery was associated with a shorter hospital stay, less EBL and paravertebral muscle injury than OLD surgery.