Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) versus endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis along with intervertebral disc herniation: a retrospective analysis

This study aims to compare the clinical effects and imaging data of patients who underwent endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) with those who received unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF). A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC musculoskeletal disorders 2024-02, Vol.25 (1), p.186-186, Article 186
Hauptverfasser: Fan, Zuoran, Wu, Xiaolin, Guo, Zhu, Shen, Nana, Chen, Bohua, Xiang, Hongfei
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study aims to compare the clinical effects and imaging data of patients who underwent endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) with those who received unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF). A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 69 patients presenting with typical intermittent claudication and signs and symptoms indicative of unilateral lower extremity nerve root compression, meeting inclusion criteria between April 2022 and June 2022. Among the cohort, 35 patients underwent ULIF group, while 34 patients underwent Endo-TLIF group. We compared perioperative parameters, including intraoperative blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and operation time between the two groups. Pre-operative and post-operative changes in the height and cross-sectional area of the target intervertebral space were also compared between the groups. Finally, we evaluated bone graft size and interbody fusion rates at 6 and 12 months post-surgery using the Brantigan scoring system. The ULIF group had significantly shorter operative times compared to the Endo-TLIF group (P  0.05). Lastly, the ULIF group had a significantly larger area of bone graft than the Endo-TLIF group (P 
ISSN:1471-2474
1471-2474
DOI:10.1186/s12891-024-07287-3