Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for single l4/5‐level lumbar disk herniation

Objectives Acupuncture is commonly used as a complimentary treatment for pain management. However, there has been no systematic review summarizing the current evidence concerning the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute postoperative pain after back surgery. This systematic review aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of acupuncture treatment for acute postoperative pain (≤1 week) after back surgery. Methods We searched 15 electronic databases without language restrictions. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and extracted data, outcomes, and risk of bias. Random effect meta-analyses and subgroup analyses were performed. Results Five trials, including 3 of high quality, met our inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed positive results for acupuncture treatment of pain after surgery in terms of the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain intensity 24 hours after surgery, when compared to sham acupuncture (standard mean difference −0.67 (−1.04 to −0.31), P = 0.0003), whereas the other meta-analysis did not show a positive effect of acupuncture on 24-hour opiate demands when compared to sham acupuncture (standard mean difference −0.23 (−0.58 to 0.13), P = 0.21). Conclusion Our systematic review finds encouraging but limited evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture treatment for acute postoperative pain after back surgery. Further rigorously designed clinical trials are required.

Numerous minimal invasive techniques treating lumbar spinal stenosis have been introduced. Clinical results using biportal endoscopic spinal surgery has recently been introduced as a treatment option for lumbar spinal stenosis. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcome between microscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression and biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

This study retrospectively compared clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) to those of conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Seventy-one ULIF (age, 68 ± 8 years) and 70 PLIF (66 ± 9 years) patients for one lumbosacral segment followed more than 1 year were selected. Parameters for surgical techniques (operation time, whether transfused), clinical results [visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI)], surgical complications (dural tear, nerve root injury, infection), and radiological results (cage subsidence, screw loosening, fusion) between the two groups were compared. The PLIF group demonstrated a significantly shorter operation time and more transfusions done than the ULIF group. The VAS for leg pain in both groups and for back pain in the ULIF group significantly improved at 1 week, while the VAS for back pain in the PLIF group significantly improved at 1 year. ODI scores improved at 1 year in both groups. Complication rates were not significantly different between groups. Fusion rates with definite and probable grades were not significantly different between groups. However, the ULIF group had significantly (P = 0.013) fewer cases of definite fusion and more cases of probable fusion [43 (74.1%) and 15 (25.9%) cases, respectively] than the PLIF group [58 (92.1%) and 5 (7.9%) cases, respectively]. ULIF is less invasive while just as effective as conventional PLIF in improving clinical outcomes and obtaining fusion. However, ULIF has a longer operation time than PLIF and requires further development to improve the fusion grade.