Frontiers in surgery · 2026
Comparison of the efficacy of one-hole split endoscopy and unilateral biportal endoscopy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yang Xiaowei, Li Shimin, Xu Lin, Yang Xiaofeng, Xue Bingchuan, Ouyang Xiao, Ning Songyi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH).
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 101 LDH patients who underwent UBE or OSE surgery in our hospital from January 2022 to January 2024. Among them, 53 cases received UBE treatment, while the remaining patients received OSE treatment. Evaluate patient outcomes, including changes in Hb and Hct levels, incision length, total blood loss (TBL), surgical duration, hospital stay, complications, visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and efficacy evaluated using modified MacNab criteria.
RESULTS: After surgery, Hb and Hct levels decreased in both groups; however, the absolute postoperative Hb and Hct levels were significantly higher in the OSE group than in the UBE group (P < 0.05). The incision length and TBL in the OSE group were lower than those in the UBE group, but the surgical time was longer than that in the UBE group (P < 0.05). There were no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications and the excellent rate after 12 months of follow-up between the two groups (P > 0.05). Both groups showed a decrease in postoperative VAS and ODI scores (P < 0.05); However, there were no significant difference in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups before surgery and at one, three, and 12 months after surgery (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with UBE, OSE has comparable clinical efficacy in treating LDH. Clinical doctors can make reasonable choices based on the specific situation of patients.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 101 LDH patients who underwent UBE or OSE surgery in our hospital from January 2022 to January 2024. Among them, 53 cases received UBE treatment, while the remaining patients received OSE treatment. Evaluate patient outcomes, including changes in Hb and Hct levels, incision length, total blood loss (TBL), surgical duration, hospital stay, complications, visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and efficacy evaluated using modified MacNab criteria.
RESULTS: After surgery, Hb and Hct levels decreased in both groups; however, the absolute postoperative Hb and Hct levels were significantly higher in the OSE group than in the UBE group (P < 0.05). The incision length and TBL in the OSE group were lower than those in the UBE group, but the surgical time was longer than that in the UBE group (P < 0.05). There were no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications and the excellent rate after 12 months of follow-up between the two groups (P > 0.05). Both groups showed a decrease in postoperative VAS and ODI scores (P < 0.05); However, there were no significant difference in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups before surgery and at one, three, and 12 months after surgery (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with UBE, OSE has comparable clinical efficacy in treating LDH. Clinical doctors can make reasonable choices based on the specific situation of patients.