Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications of biportal and uniportal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.9 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Joint diseases and related surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.52312/jdrs.2024.1820
Jun Li, Ting Zhang
{"title":"Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications of biportal and uniportal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Jun Li, Ting Zhang","doi":"10.52312/jdrs.2024.1820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and complication rates of decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopy (PE) in cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature review was conducted up to April 2024 across multiple databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data, focusing on clinical studies that compare UBE with PE for posterior foraminotomy and discectomy decompression in CSR. The meta-analysis was performed with an emphasis on evaluating clinical outcomes such as operation time, blood loss, incision length, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck pain and arm pain, and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of an initial 1,041 studies identified from electronic databases, eight were deemed eligible based on title, abstract, and full-text screening. These studies involved 552 patients (269 males, 283 females; mean age: 53.9±11.4 years; range, 30 to 79 years), with 287 in the UBE group and 265 in the PE group. Meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in operation time between UBE and PE (mean difference [MD]=-3.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]:-19.38, 12.02; p=0.65). However, both blood loss (MD=17.01; 95% CI: 2.61, 31.41; p=0.02) and incision length (MD=11.62; 95% CI: 9.23, 14.01; p<0.00001) were significantly lower in the PE group compared to the UBE group. Regarding clinical outcomes, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of NDI (MD=0.12; 95% CI:-0.10, 0.34; 0.28), VAS for neck pain (MD=-0.06; 95% CI:-0.19, 0.06; p=0.32), VAS for arm pain (MD=-0.14; 95% CI:-0.26, -0.01; p=0.84), or complications (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 0.54, 2.10; p=0.85).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that there are no significant disparities in clinical outcomes between UBE and PE, encompassing NDI, VAS for arm pain, and VAS for neck pain, as well as complication rates. Notably, compared to PE, UBE results in increased bleeding and longer incision lengths when treating CSR, without substantially reducing operation time.</p>","PeriodicalId":73560,"journal":{"name":"Joint diseases and related surgery","volume":"35 3","pages":"583-593"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11411877/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joint diseases and related surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52312/jdrs.2024.1820","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and complication rates of decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopy (PE) in cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR).

Materials and methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted up to April 2024 across multiple databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data, focusing on clinical studies that compare UBE with PE for posterior foraminotomy and discectomy decompression in CSR. The meta-analysis was performed with an emphasis on evaluating clinical outcomes such as operation time, blood loss, incision length, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck pain and arm pain, and complications.

Results: Out of an initial 1,041 studies identified from electronic databases, eight were deemed eligible based on title, abstract, and full-text screening. These studies involved 552 patients (269 males, 283 females; mean age: 53.9±11.4 years; range, 30 to 79 years), with 287 in the UBE group and 265 in the PE group. Meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in operation time between UBE and PE (mean difference [MD]=-3.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]:-19.38, 12.02; p=0.65). However, both blood loss (MD=17.01; 95% CI: 2.61, 31.41; p=0.02) and incision length (MD=11.62; 95% CI: 9.23, 14.01; p<0.00001) were significantly lower in the PE group compared to the UBE group. Regarding clinical outcomes, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of NDI (MD=0.12; 95% CI:-0.10, 0.34; 0.28), VAS for neck pain (MD=-0.06; 95% CI:-0.19, 0.06; p=0.32), VAS for arm pain (MD=-0.14; 95% CI:-0.26, -0.01; p=0.84), or complications (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 0.54, 2.10; p=0.85).

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that there are no significant disparities in clinical outcomes between UBE and PE, encompassing NDI, VAS for arm pain, and VAS for neck pain, as well as complication rates. Notably, compared to PE, UBE results in increased bleeding and longer incision lengths when treating CSR, without substantially reducing operation time.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较双门和单门内窥镜减压术治疗颈椎根性病变的临床效果和并发症:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
研究目的本研究旨在比较单侧双侧内镜(UBE)和经皮内镜(PE)减压治疗颈椎病(CSR)的临床疗效和并发症发生率:截至2024年4月,在EMBASE、PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、中国国家知识基础设施和万方数据等多个数据库中进行了全面的文献综述,重点关注UBE与PE在CSR后椎板切除和椎间盘切除减压术中的临床研究比较。荟萃分析的重点是评估手术时间、失血量、切口长度、颈部残疾指数(NDI)、颈部疼痛和手臂疼痛的视觉模拟量表(VAS)以及并发症等临床结果:在最初从电子数据库中找到的 1,041 项研究中,根据标题、摘要和全文筛选,有 8 项研究被认为符合条件。这些研究涉及 552 名患者(269 名男性,283 名女性;平均年龄:53.9±11.4 岁;范围:30 至 79 岁),其中 287 名患者属于 UBE 组,265 名患者属于 PE 组。Meta 分析表明,UBE 和 PE 的手术时间无显著差异(平均差异 [MD]=-3.68; 95% 置信区间 [CI]:-19.38, 12.02; p=0.65)。然而,失血量(MD=17.01;95% CI:2.61,31.41;P=0.02)和切口长度(MD=11.62;95% CI:9.23,14.01;P结论:我们的研究结果表明,UBE 和 PE 的临床疗效(包括 NDI、手臂疼痛 VAS 和颈部疼痛 VAS 以及并发症发生率)没有明显差异。值得注意的是,与 PE 相比,在治疗 CSR 时,UBE 会导致出血量增加和切口长度延长,但手术时间并未大幅缩短。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Arteriovenous fistula and pseudoaneurysm in a pediatric patient with persistent postoperative hemarthrosis: A rare complication following arthroscopic repair of a bucket handle medial meniscal tear. Clinical results of knee juxta-articular giant-cell tumors treated with bone cement filling and internal fixation after extensive curettage. Effect of supplementation with type 1 and type 3 collagen peptide and type 2 hydrolyzed collagen on osteoarthritis-related pain, quality of life, and physical function: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Does the use of robotic technology in knee arthroplasty provide superior clinical outcomes? Effect of posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining implants on three-dimensional kinematic characteristics after total knee arthroplasty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1