Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation linked with posterior ring apophysis separation: a retrospective study

JiaLe Qian,XiuQiang Lv,YongJun Luo,YiJie Liu,Weimin Jiang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2024.09.102
2024-09-25
Abstract:Objectives: Posterior ring apophysis separation (PRAS) associated with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a relatively rare form of disc herniation. This study aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in the treatment of PRAS with LDH. Methods: We enrolled 41 patients who met the inclusion criteria to undergo either unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) (15 cases) or percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) (26 cases) between October 2022 and October 2023. Perioperative evaluation parameters included mean operative time, hemoglobin (Hb) loss, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative complications. Outcomes were assessed at admission, as well as at 1, 3, and 6 months post-surgery using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Additionally, we evaluated the results according to the modified MacNab criteria. Results: Both groups demonstrated improvements in postoperative VAS and ODI scores. However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in VAS and ODI scores before surgery, or at 1, 3, and 6 months post-surgery. Additionally, no notable differences were observed in the modified MacNab criteria. The UBE group experienced greater hemoglobin (Hb) loss, longer mean operative time, and increased length of stay (LOS) compared to the PELD group. Furthermore, two patients in the PELD group reported recurrence, while one patient in the UBE group experienced a dural tear. Conclusions: UBE and PELD possess strong clinical effectiveness for treating PRAS with LDH. Although the UBE group had a longer mean operative time and LOS, with more Hb loss, the UBE group had a lower recurrence rate. Therefore, UBE remains safe and innovative for the treatment of PRAS with LDH.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?