Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study

Background Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgi...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Jiang, Hao-Wei [verfasserIn] Chen, Cheng-Dong Zhan, Bi-Shui Wang, Yong-Li Tang, Pan Jiang, Xue-Sheng

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	Lumbar disc herniation Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy Hidden blood loss

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s) 2022

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research - London : Biomed Central, 2006, 17(2022), 1 vom: 15. Jan.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:17 ; year:2022 ; number:1 ; day:15 ; month:01

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5

Katalog-ID:	SPR050418262

Internformat


LEADER	01000naa a22002652 4500
001	SPR050418262
003	DE-627
005	20230507083313.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230507s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR050418262
035			\|a (SPR)s13018-022-02929-5-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Jiang, Hao-Wei \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s) 2022
520			\|a Background Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH. Methods The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. Results The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. Conclusions Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs.
650		4	\|a Lumbar disc herniation \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Hidden blood loss \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Chen, Cheng-Dong \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Zhan, Bi-Shui \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Wang, Yong-Li \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Tang, Pan \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Jiang, Xue-Sheng \|0 (orcid)0000-0003-3640-3744 \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research \|d London : Biomed Central, 2006 \|g 17(2022), 1 vom: 15. Jan. \|w (DE-627)518346145 \|w (DE-600)2252548-8 \|x 1749-799X \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:17 \|g year:2022 \|g number:1 \|g day:15 \|g month:01
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 17 \|j 2022 \|e 1 \|b 15 \|c 01

Indexfelder

author_variant	h w j hwj c d c cdc b s z bsz y l w ylw p t pt x s j xsj
matchkey_str	article:1749799X:2022----::nltrliotlnocpciccoyessectnosnocpcubriccoynhtetetfub
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5 doi (DE-627)SPR050418262 (SPR)s13018-022-02929-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jiang, Hao-Wei verfasserin aut Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH. Methods The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. Results The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. Conclusions Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs. Lumbar disc herniation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hidden blood loss (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chen, Cheng-Dong aut Zhan, Bi-Shui aut Wang, Yong-Li aut Tang, Pan aut Jiang, Xue-Sheng (orcid)0000-0003-3640-3744 aut Enthalten in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research London : Biomed Central, 2006 17(2022), 1 vom: 15. Jan. (DE-627)518346145 (DE-600)2252548-8 1749-799X nnns volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:15 month:01 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2022 1 15 01
spelling	10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5 doi (DE-627)SPR050418262 (SPR)s13018-022-02929-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jiang, Hao-Wei verfasserin aut Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH. Methods The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. Results The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. Conclusions Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs. Lumbar disc herniation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hidden blood loss (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chen, Cheng-Dong aut Zhan, Bi-Shui aut Wang, Yong-Li aut Tang, Pan aut Jiang, Xue-Sheng (orcid)0000-0003-3640-3744 aut Enthalten in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research London : Biomed Central, 2006 17(2022), 1 vom: 15. Jan. (DE-627)518346145 (DE-600)2252548-8 1749-799X nnns volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:15 month:01 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2022 1 15 01
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5 doi (DE-627)SPR050418262 (SPR)s13018-022-02929-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jiang, Hao-Wei verfasserin aut Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH. Methods The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. Results The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. Conclusions Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs. Lumbar disc herniation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hidden blood loss (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chen, Cheng-Dong aut Zhan, Bi-Shui aut Wang, Yong-Li aut Tang, Pan aut Jiang, Xue-Sheng (orcid)0000-0003-3640-3744 aut Enthalten in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research London : Biomed Central, 2006 17(2022), 1 vom: 15. Jan. (DE-627)518346145 (DE-600)2252548-8 1749-799X nnns volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:15 month:01 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2022 1 15 01
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5 doi (DE-627)SPR050418262 (SPR)s13018-022-02929-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jiang, Hao-Wei verfasserin aut Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH. Methods The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. Results The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. Conclusions Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs. Lumbar disc herniation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hidden blood loss (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chen, Cheng-Dong aut Zhan, Bi-Shui aut Wang, Yong-Li aut Tang, Pan aut Jiang, Xue-Sheng (orcid)0000-0003-3640-3744 aut Enthalten in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research London : Biomed Central, 2006 17(2022), 1 vom: 15. Jan. (DE-627)518346145 (DE-600)2252548-8 1749-799X nnns volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:15 month:01 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2022 1 15 01
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5 doi (DE-627)SPR050418262 (SPR)s13018-022-02929-5-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Jiang, Hao-Wei verfasserin aut Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH. Methods The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. Results The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. Conclusions Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs. Lumbar disc herniation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hidden blood loss (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chen, Cheng-Dong aut Zhan, Bi-Shui aut Wang, Yong-Li aut Tang, Pan aut Jiang, Xue-Sheng (orcid)0000-0003-3640-3744 aut Enthalten in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research London : Biomed Central, 2006 17(2022), 1 vom: 15. Jan. (DE-627)518346145 (DE-600)2252548-8 1749-799X nnns volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:15 month:01 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2022 1 15 01
language	English
source	Enthalten in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research 17(2022), 1 vom: 15. Jan. volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:15 month:01
sourceStr	Enthalten in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research 17(2022), 1 vom: 15. Jan. volume:17 year:2022 number:1 day:15 month:01
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Lumbar disc herniation Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy Hidden blood loss
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Jiang, Hao-Wei @@aut@@ Chen, Cheng-Dong @@aut@@ Zhan, Bi-Shui @@aut@@ Wang, Yong-Li @@aut@@ Tang, Pan @@aut@@ Jiang, Xue-Sheng @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-15T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	518346145
id	SPR050418262
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR050418262</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230507083313.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230507s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR050418262</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s13018-022-02929-5-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jiang, Hao-Wei</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH. Methods The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. Results The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. Conclusions Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Lumbar disc herniation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hidden blood loss</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chen, Cheng-Dong</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhan, Bi-Shui</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang, Yong-Li</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tang, Pan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jiang, Xue-Sheng</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-3640-3744</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research</subfield><subfield code="d">London : Biomed Central, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2022), 1 vom: 15. Jan.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)518346145</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2252548-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1749-799X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:15</subfield><subfield code="g">month:01</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">15</subfield><subfield code="c">01</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Jiang, Hao-Wei
spellingShingle	Jiang, Hao-Wei misc Lumbar disc herniation misc Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy misc Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy misc Hidden blood loss Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
authorStr	Jiang, Hao-Wei
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)518346145
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1749-799X
topic_title	Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study Lumbar disc herniation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Hidden blood loss (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Lumbar disc herniation misc Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy misc Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy misc Hidden blood loss
topic_unstemmed	misc Lumbar disc herniation misc Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy misc Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy misc Hidden blood loss
topic_browse	misc Lumbar disc herniation misc Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy misc Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy misc Hidden blood loss
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
hierarchy_parent_id	518346145
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)518346145 (DE-600)2252548-8
title	Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR050418262 (SPR)s13018-022-02929-5-e
title_full	Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
author_sort	Jiang, Hao-Wei
journal	Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
journalStr	Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Jiang, Hao-Wei Chen, Cheng-Dong Zhan, Bi-Shui Wang, Yong-Li Tang, Pan Jiang, Xue-Sheng
container_volume	17
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Jiang, Hao-Wei
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5
normlink	(ORCID)0000-0003-3640-3744
normlink_prefix_str_mv	(orcid)0000-0003-3640-3744
title_sort	unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
title_auth	Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
abstract	Background Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH. Methods The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. Results The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. Conclusions Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs. © The Author(s) 2022
abstractGer	Background Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH. Methods The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. Results The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. Conclusions Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs. © The Author(s) 2022
abstract_unstemmed	Background Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH. Methods The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. Results The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. Conclusions Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs. © The Author(s) 2022
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5
remote_bool	true
author2	Chen, Cheng-Dong Zhan, Bi-Shui Wang, Yong-Li Tang, Pan Jiang, Xue-Sheng
author2Str	Chen, Cheng-Dong Zhan, Bi-Shui Wang, Yong-Li Tang, Pan Jiang, Xue-Sheng
ppnlink	518346145
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5
up_date	2024-07-03T15:24:38.754Z
_version_	1803571983813705728
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR050418262</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230507083313.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230507s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR050418262</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s13018-022-02929-5-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jiang, Hao-Wei</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) is a rapidly growing surgical method that uses arthroscopic system for treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH), while percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) has been standardized as a representative minimally invasive spine surgical technique for LDH. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between UBE and PELD for treatment of patients with LDH. Methods The subjects consisted of 54 patients who underwent UBE (24 cases) and PELD (30 cases) who were followed up for at least 6 months. All patients had lumber disc herniation for 1 level. Outcomes of the patients were assessed with operation time, incision length, hospital stay, total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss (IBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), complications, total hospitalization costs, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and modified MacNab criteria. Results The VAS scores and ODI decreased significantly in two groups after operation. Preoperative and 1 day, 1 month, 6 months after operation VAS and ODI scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared with PELD group, UBE group was associated with higher TBL, higher IBL, higher HBL, longer operation time, longer hospital stay, longer incision length, and more total hospitalization costs. However, a dural tear occurred in one patient of the UBE group. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications between the two groups. Conclusions Application of UBE for treatment of lumbar disc herniation yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD, including pain control and patient satisfaction. However, UBE was associated with various disadvantages relative to PELD, including increased total, intraoperative and hidden blood loss, longer operation times, longer hospital stays, and more total hospitalization costs.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Lumbar disc herniation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hidden blood loss</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Chen, Cheng-Dong</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhan, Bi-Shui</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang, Yong-Li</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tang, Pan</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jiang, Xue-Sheng</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-3640-3744</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research</subfield><subfield code="d">London : Biomed Central, 2006</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2022), 1 vom: 15. Jan.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)518346145</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2252548-8</subfield><subfield code="x">1749-799X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:15</subfield><subfield code="g">month:01</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">15</subfield><subfield code="c">01</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3999033

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?