Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Background:The purpose of this study was to analyze unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Methods:PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched online. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA 16.0.Results:The selection criteria were met by 6 studies with a total of 281 patients (142 cases in the UBE group and 139 cases in the PELD group) and good methodological quality. PELD has the potential to improve outcomes such as operation time and intraoperative hemorrhage (MD = 36.808, 95% CI (23.766, 49.850), P = .000; MD = 59.269, 95% CI (21.527, 97.010), P = .000) compared with UBE. No differences were found in the back pain VAS score at preoperative (MD = −0.024, 95% CI [−0.572, 0.092], P = .998), at 1 day after operation (MD = −0.300, 95% CI [−0.845, 0.246], P = .878), the VAS score of leg pain at preoperative (MD = −0.099, 95% CI [−0.417, 0.220], P = .762), at 1 day after operation (MD = 0.843, 95% CI [0.193, 1.492], P = .420), at 1 month after operation (MD = −0.027, 95% CI [−0.433, 0.380], P = .386), at 6 months after operation (MD = 0.122, 95% CI [−0.035, 0.278], P = .946), hospital stay (MD = 3.708, 95% CI [3.202, 4.214], P = .000) and other clinical effects between UBE and PELD group.Conclusions:There are no significant differences in clinical efficacy between UBE and PELD, according to the research. However, PELD has the potential to improve outcomes such as operation time and intraoperative hemorrhage. As just a result, PELD is better suited in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.