Abstract

PurposeOpen decompression is currently the standard surgical procedure for symptomatic OLF. As the minimal invasive method gains popularity, UBE is considered a reliable technique with less complication. However, the outcome is still in question. This study aimed to evaluate and compare UBE versus open surgery in symptomatic OLF cases. MethodsWe evaluated 35 patients with single- or two-level thoracic OLF, underwent decompression by open or UBE. Surgery duration, estimated blood loss, and LOS were recorded as intraoperative parameters. Minimum follow-up was 1 year to evaluate clinical parameters based on the mJOA score, Frankel grade, and recovery rate (RR). ResultsThe UBE procedure showed significant superiority with faster surgery (62.5 min vs. 180 min; p < 0.001), less blood loss (50 mL vs. 250 mL; p < 0.001), and shorter LOS (4 days vs. 6 days; p < 0,001). UBE patients showed notable clinical improvement on the mJOA score at 1 year (8.2 ± 0.18 vs. 6.8 ± 0.24; p = 0.015). Frankel grade improvements seen in both groups with 51.4% of subjects having at least a 1-point upgrade. RR in 1 year resulted in significant recovery in UBE group (RR-UBE 43.2 ± 17 vs. RR-open 26.3 ± 15.3; p < 0.05). No neurological deterioration or significant complication occurred after either procedure. ConclusionThe UBE technique allows faster decompression with less blood loss and shorter LOS compared to open surgery. It was found to be a reliable treatment option in treating OLF with favorable clinical outcomes and improved patient neurological status.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call