Uniportal Full-Endoscopic versus Minimally Invasive Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Background In this study, we systematically analyze the effectiveness of the uniportal full-endoscopic (UPFE) and minimally invasive (MIS) decompression for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis patients. Methods We performed a systematic search in Medline, Embase, Europe PMC, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China national knowledge infrastructure, and Wanfang Data databases for all relevant studies. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Results A total of 9 articles with 522 patients in the UPFE group and 367 patients in the MIS group were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the UPFE group had significantly better results in hospital stay time (mean difference [MD]: –2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –2.87 to –1.23), intraoperative blood loss (MD: –36.56; 95% CI: –54.57 to –18.56), and wound-related complications (MD: –36.56; 95%CI: –54.57 to –18.56) compared with the MIS group, whereas the postoperative clinical scores (MD: –0.66; 95%CI: –1.79 to 0.47; MD: –0.75; 95%CI: –1.86 to 0.36; and MD: –4.58; 95%CI: –16.80 to 7.63), satisfaction rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.24; 95%CI: 0.70–2.20), operation time (MD: 30.31; 95%CI: –12.55 to 73.18), complication rates for dural injury (OR = 0.60; 95%CI: 0.29–1.26), epidural hematoma (OR = 0.60; 95%CI: 0.29–1.26), and postoperative transient dysesthesia and weakness (OR = 0.73; 95%CI: 0.36–1.51) showed no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusions The UPFE decompression is associated with shorter hospital stay time and lower intraoperative blood loss and wound-related complications compared with MIS decompression for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis patients. The postoperative clinical scores, satisfaction rate, operation time, complication rates for dural injury, epidural hematoma, and postoperative transient dysesthesia and weakness did not differ significantly between two groups.