Abstract
OBJECTIVE: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: The ULIF group had significantly shorter operative times compared to the Endo-TLIF group (P < 0.05). Conversely, the Endo-TLIF group exhibited significantly shorter hospital stays compared to the ULIF group (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in intraoperative bleeding between the two groups (P > 0.05). Furthermore, both groups exhibited postoperative increases in vertebral canal volume compared to baseline (P < 0.05), with no significant difference in the change in the cross-sectional area of the target intervertebral space between the two surgical methods (P > 0.05). Interbody fusion rates were comparable between the two groups at both 6 and 12 months after surgery (P > 0.05). Lastly, the ULIF group had a significantly larger area of bone graft than the Endo-TLIF group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In summary, the ULIF technique, as a novel spinal endoscopy approach, is a safer and more effective minimally invasive surgical method for addressing lumbar spinal stenosis and intervertebral disc herniation in patients. Both surgical methods have their own advantages and drawbacks. With the development of technology and related instruments, the limitations of both techniques can be mitigated for to a certain extent, and they can be applied by more doctors in diverse medical fields in the future.