Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): 1-year follow-up
- 200 Downloads
This study retrospectively compared clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) to those of conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Seventy-one ULIF (age, 68 ± 8 years) and 70 PLIF (66 ± 9 years) patients for one lumbosacral segment followed more than 1 year were selected. Parameters for surgical techniques (operation time, whether transfused), clinical results [visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI)], surgical complications (dural tear, nerve root injury, infection), and radiological results (cage subsidence, screw loosening, fusion) between the two groups were compared. The PLIF group demonstrated a significantly shorter operation time and more transfusions done than the ULIF group. The VAS for leg pain in both groups and for back pain in the ULIF group significantly improved at 1 week, while the VAS for back pain in the PLIF group significantly improved at 1 year. ODI scores improved at 1 year in both groups. Complication rates were not significantly different between groups. Fusion rates with definite and probable grades were not significantly different between groups. However, the ULIF group had significantly (P = 0.013) fewer cases of definite fusion and more cases of probable fusion [43 (74.1%) and 15 (25.9%) cases, respectively] than the PLIF group [58 (92.1%) and 5 (7.9%) cases, respectively]. ULIF is less invasive while just as effective as conventional PLIF in improving clinical outcomes and obtaining fusion. However, ULIF has a longer operation time than PLIF and requires further development to improve the fusion grade.
KeywordsUnilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion Posterior lumbar interbody fusion Clinical outcome Radiological outcome
No funding was received for this research.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Ministry of Health and Welfare in South Korea (P01-201810-21-006).
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
ULIF procedures resecting facet joint and exposing the ipsilateral disc surface (WMV 12427 kb)
Endplate preparation in ULIF procedures (WMV 13896 kb)
- 2.Boukebir M, Berlin C, Navarro Ramirez R, Heiland T, Schöller K, Rawanduzy C, Kirnaz S, Jada A, Härtl R (2017) Ten-step minimally invasive spine lumbar decompression and dural repair through tubular retractors. Open Neurosci J 13:232–245Google Scholar
- 11.Komp M, Hahn P, Oezdemir S, Giannakopoulos A, Heikenfeld R, Kasch R, Merk H, Godolias G, Ruetten S (2015) Bilateral spinal decompression of lumbar central stenosis with the full-endoscopic interlaminar versus microsurgical laminotomy technique: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Pain Physician 18:61–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Lee C, Choi M, Ryu D, Choi I, Kim C, Kim H, Sohn M (2018) Efficacy and safety of full-endoscopic decompression via interlaminar approach for central or lateral recess spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine: a meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:1756–1764. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Rasouli MR, Rahimi-Movaghar V, Shokraneh F, Moradi-Lakeh M, Chou R (2014) Minimally invasive discectomy versus microdiscectomy/open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4. John Wiley &Sons, Ltd, New York. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010328.pub2