Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To compare the short-term outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BLIF) and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF). Methods Sixty patients diagnosed with L4/5 spinal stenosis who underwent BLIF and ULIF were included (30 in each group). Clinical evaluation was performed preoperatively and postoperatively in the 1st week, 1st month, and 1st year. Factors such as the visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), operative time, surgical complications, and radiological outcomes (fusion rate, screw loosening, and cage subsidence) were compared between the two groups. Results All patients showed improved mean VAS and ODI at all three postoperative follow-ups, and no statistically significant differences were detected between the BLIF and ULIF groups. The mean operative time in the BLIF group was shorter than that in the ULIF group. Nerve root injury occurred in two patients in the BLIF group, while leakage of cerebrospinal fluid occurred in one patient in the ULIF group. All adverse events were treated adequately prior to discharge. The fusion rates with definite and probable grades were significantly higher in the BLIF group than that in the ULIF group. One case of cage subsidence with no screw loosening occurred in each group. Conclusion Both BLIF and ULIF are safe and effective surgical techniques. Compared with ULIF, BLIF has the advantages of shorter operative time and a higher fusion rate. Other merits of BLIF include a wider surgical field, greater maneuverability of instruments, visibility during cage implantation, and transverse orientation of the cage.

Keywords

• Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion
• Uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion
• Surgical outcomes