Comparison of Biportal Endoscopic Technique and Conventional Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) for Multi-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Elderly People

Abstract

Objective: The object of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical, radiological, and spinal stability outcomes of biportal endoscopic Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression (BE-ULBD) and traditional Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) for multi-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis in elderly patients with osteoporosis.

Methods: We retrospectively identified 41 and 47 patients who underwent BE-ULBD and ULBD, respectively, who were diagnosed with multi-level lumbar stenosis and underwent double-segmental surgery in elderly patients. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS) score for both back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire score during the two-year follow-up. The radiological changes of cross-sectional dural area (DCSA), facet joint preservation rate (PFJR) and cross-sectional fat infiltration ratio (FI) on the surgical side were evaluated by MRI before and after operation. At 2 years after operation, progressive spondylolisthesis and instability were evaluated in the X-ray of the lumbar spine.

Results: After 24 months of follow-up, the VAS scores for both back and leg pain, ODI, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire in both groups were recovered compared to pre-operation. The postoperative VAS score for lower back pain in the BE-ULBD group was lower than in the ULBD group (1.00 ± 0.95 vs. 1.91 ± 1.07, p < 0.001), and the postoperative VAS score for lower limbs was similar (0.49 ± 0.51 vs. 0.46 ± 0.72, p < 0.001). The postoperative ODI score was lower than that of the ULBD group (9.05 ± 5.01 vs. 12.09 ± 6.18, p < 0.001), and the postoperative ZCQ score of the BE-ULBD group was lower than that of the ULBD group (10.59 ± 2.18 vs. 8.85 ± 1.59, p < 0.001; 7.00 ± 1.12 vs. 7.87 ± 1.63, p = 0.012; 8.95 ± 2.11 vs. 10.74 ± 2.47, p < 0.001). In terms of radiological evaluation, the DCSA of patients in both groups was effectively improved after surgery. Compared with the ULBD group, the BE-ULBD group had a tiny improvement in DCSA (195.04 ± 34.54 vs. 180.93 ± 31.07, p = 0.048) and a better FI (43.48 ± 10.24 vs. 53.93 ± 7.62, p < 0.001). The PFJR was higher (85.90 ± 4.03 vs. 81.26 ± 4.56, p < 0.001) in the BE-ULBD group. Two years after surgery, fewer patients in the BE-ULBD group had spondylolisthesis than in the ULBD group (1/41 vs. 7/46, p = 0.043). The results of complications were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion: BE-ULBD is a safe and effective technique for multilevel decompression surgery in elderly patients, which can better protect spinal stability and has better long-term follow-up than traditional surgery.

Keywords

BE-ULBD / clinical efficacy / imaging changes / multi-level LSS / UBE surgery

References

[1] R. K. Jensen, T. S. Jensen, B. Koes, and J. Hartvigsen, “Prevalence of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in General and Clinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” European Spine Journal 29, no. 9 (2020): 2143-2163, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06339-1.

[2] D. S. Kreiner, W. O. Shaffer, J. L. Baisden, et al., “An Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (Update),” Spine Journal 13 (2013): 734-743, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.11.059.

[3] K. P. Botwin and R. D. Gruber, “Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Anatomy and Pathogenesis,” Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America 14 (2003): 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1047-9651(02)00063-3.

[4] A. J. Haig and C. C. Tomkins, “Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” JAMA 303, no. 1 (2010): 71-72, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1946.

[5] M. Bydon, M. A. Alvi, and A. Goyal, “Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Definition, Natural History, Conservative Management, and Surgical Treatment,” Neurosurgery Clinics of North America 30, no. 3 (2019): 299-304, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2019.02.003.

[6] K. S. Song, E. C. Jang, H. J. Jung, K. W. Kim, and H. Yu, “Observer Variability in the Evaluation of Multiple Lumbar Stenosis by Routine MR-Myelography and MRI,” Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 21, no. 8 (2008): 569-574, https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181639b3b.

[7] T. Iguchi, A. Kurihara, J. Nakayama, K. Sato, M. Kurosaka, and K. Yamasaki, “Minimum 10-Year Outcome of Decompressive Laminectomy for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Spine 25 (2000): 1754-1759, https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200007150-00003.

[8] A. Drysch, R. M. Ajiboye, A. Sharma, et al., “Effectiveness of Reoperations for Adjacent Segment Disease Following Lumbar Spinal Fusion,” Orthopedics 41, no. 2 (2018): e161, https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20170621-02.

[9] U. Adilay and B. Guclu, “Comparison of Single-Level and Multilevel Decompressive Laminectomy for Multilevel Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” World Neurosurgery 111 (2018): e235-e240, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.12.033.

[10] S. M. Tuli, V. Kapoor, A. K. Jain, and S. Jain, “Spinaplasty Following Lumbar Laminectomy for Multilevel Lumbar Spinal Stenosis to Prevent Iatrogenic Instability,” Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 45, no. 5 (2011): 396-403, https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.83140.

[11] Z. Lu, R. Dong, Z. Liu, X. Cheng, Y. Guo, and K. Zhang, “Influence of Muscle Soft Tissue and Lower Limbs on the Vibration Behavior of the Entire Spine Inside the Seated Human Body: A Finite Element Study,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine 238, no. 7 (2024): 731-740, https://doi.org/10.1177/09544119241262500.

[12] D. L. Belavy, G. Armbrecht, C. A. Richardson, D. Felsenberg, and J. A. Hides, “Muscle Atrophy and Changes in Spinal Morphology: Is the Lumbar Spine Vulnerable After Prolonged Bed-Rest?,” Spine 36 (2011): 137-145, https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cc93e8.

[13] S. A. Hamawandi, I. I. Sulaiman, and A. K. Al-Humairi, “Microdecompression Versus Open Laminectomy and Posterior Stabilization for Multilevel Lumbar Spine Stenosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Pain Research & Management 2019 (2019): 7214129, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/7214129.

[14] B. Skovrlj, J. Gilligan, H. S. Cutler, and S. A. Qureshi, “Minimally Invasive Procedures on the Lumbar Spine,” World Journal of Clinical Cases 3, no. 1 (2015): 1-9, https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v3.i1.1.

[15] X. Li, J. Liu, and Z. Liu, “Comparison of the Results of Open PLIF Versus UBE PLIF in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Postoperative Adjacent Segment Instability Is Lesser in UBE,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 18, no. 1 (2023): 543, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04038-3.

[16] H. X. Zhuang, S. J. Guo, H. Meng, J. S. Lin, Y. Yang, and Q. Fei, “Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 27 (2023): 4998-5012, https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202306_32617.

[17] F. Wang, R. Wang, C. Zhang, E. Song, and F. Li, “Clinical Effects of Arthroscopic-Assisted Uni-Portal Spinal Surgery and Unilateral Bi-Portal Endoscopy on Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 19, no. 1 (2024): 167, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04621-2.

[18] H. Chang, J. Xu, D. Yang, J. Sun, X. Gao, and W. Ding, “Comparison of Full-Endoscopic Foraminoplasty and Lumbar Discectomy (FEFLD), unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) Discectomy, and Microdiscectomy (MD) for Symptomatic Lumbar Disc Herniation,” European Spine Journal 32, no. 2 (2023): 542-554, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07510-6.

[19] D. Xu, W. Shu, L. Lian, et al., “Unilateral Decompressive Laminectomy Plus Fusion Using Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Technique for Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Asian Journal of Surgery 47 (2024): 3457-3463, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2024.01.039.

[20] N. H. Ulrich, J. M. Burgstaller, I. Gravestock, et al., “Outcome of Unilateral Versus Standard Open Midline Approach for Bilateral Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Is Over the Top Really Better? A Swiss Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 31, no. 2 (2019): 236-245, https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.2.SPINE181309.

[21] F. G. Sigmundsson, X. P. Kang, B. Jonsson, and B. Stromqvist, “Correlation Between Disability and MRI Findings in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Prospective Study of 109 Patients Operated on by Decompression,” Acta Orthopaedica 82, no. 2 (2011): 204-210, https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.566150.

[22] K. Takahashi, K. Olmarker, S. Holm, R. W. Porter, and B. Rydevik, “Double-Level Cauda Equina Compression: An Experimental Study With Continuous Monitoring of Intraneural Blood Flow in the Porcine Cauda Equina,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research 11, no. 1 (1993): 104-109, https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100110112.

[23] K. Sato and S. Kikuchi, “Clinical Analysis of Two-Level Compression of the Cauda Equina and the Nerve Roots in Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis,” Spine 22 (1997): 1898-1903.

[24] P. C. Friis, S. Eiskjaer, A. M. Osterheden, C. L. Yacat, and P. Doering, “A Propensity-Matched Study of Patients With Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Opting for Surgery Versus Not,” Brain Spine 4 (2024): 102802, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2024.102802.

[25] F. Zaina, C. Tomkins-Lane, E. Carragee, and S. Negrini, “Surgical Versus Non-Surgical Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016 (2016): D10264.

[26] J. M. Jung, S. J. Hyun, K. J. Kim, et al., “A Prospective Study of Non-Surgical Versus Surgical Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Without Instability,” Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 80 (2020): 100-107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2020.07.062.

[27] F. Louis-Sidney, J. F. Duby, A. Signate, et al., “Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment: Is Surgery Better Than Non-Surgical Treatments in Afro-Descendant Populations?,” Biomedicine 10, no. 12 (2022): 3144, https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10123144.

[28] J. H. Kim, Y. J. Kim, K. S. Ryu, and J. S. Kim, “Comparison of the Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Full-Endoscopic Laminotomy and Conventional Subtotal Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Global Spine Journal 14, no. 6 (2024): 1760-1770, https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682231155846.

[29] Y. Sheng, J. Li, L. Chen, et al., “Delta Large-Channel Technique Versus Microscopy-Assisted Laminar Fenestration Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A One-Year Prospective Cohort Study,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 24, no. 1 (2023): 43, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06143-0.

[30] Y. Zhang, H. Zhu, Z. Zhou, et al., “Comparison Between Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Fenestration in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Medical Science Monitor 26 (2020): e926631, https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.926631.

[31] W. Sun, C. Xue, X. Y. Tang, et al., “Selective Versus Multi-Segmental Decompression and Fusion for Multi-Segment Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Single-Segment Degenerative Spondylolisthesis,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 14, no. 1 (2019): 46, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1092-2.

[32] S. L. de Kunder, S. van Kuijk, K. Rijkers, et al., “Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF) in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Spine Journal 17 (2017): 1712-1721, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.06.018.

[33] J. Shen, Q. Wang, Y. Wang, et al., “Comparison Between Fusion and Non-Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis,” Advanced Therapy 38, no. 3 (2021): 1404-1414, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-020-01604-7.

[34] K. U. Lewandrowski and N. A. Ransom, “Five-Year Clinical Outcomes With Endoscopic Transforaminal Outside-In Foraminoplasty Techniques for Symptomatic Degenerative Conditions of the Lumbar Spine,” Journal of Spine Surgery 6 (2020): S54-S65, https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.07.03.

[35] S. Murata, K. Nagata, H. Iwasaki, et al., “Long-Term Outcomes After Selective Microendoscopic Laminotomy for Multilevel Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With and Without Remaining Radiographic Stenosis: A 10-Year Follow-Up Study,” Spine Surgery and Related Research 6 (2022): 488-496.

[36] T. Yamamoto, M. Yagi, S. Suzuki, et al., “Multilevel Decompression Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Canal Stenosis Is Similarly Effective With Single-Level Decompression Surgery,” Spine 47 (2022): 1728-1736, https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004447.

[37] H. Cheng, G. Luo, D. Xu, et al., “Decompression Alone or Fusion in Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Spondylolisthesis? A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 25, no. 1 (2024): 726, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07641-5.

[38] H. Inose, T. Kato, M. Yuasa, et al., “Comparison of Decompression, Decompression Plus Fusion, and Decompression Plus Stabilization for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Prospective, Randomized Study,” Clinical Spine Surgery 31, no. 7 (2018): E347-E352, https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000659.

[39] Z. Ghogawala, J. Dziura, W. E. Butler, et al., “Laminectomy Plus Fusion Versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis,” New England Journal of Medicine 374 (2016): 1424-1434.

[40] T. A. Pieters, Y. I. Li, J. E. Towner, et al., “Comparative Analysis of Decompression Versus Decompression and Fusion for Surgical Management of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis,” World Neurosurgery 125 (2019): e1183-e1188, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.01.275.

[41] P. S. Gadjradj, M. Basilious, J. L. Goldberg, et al., “Decompression Alone Versus Decompression With Fusion in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” European Spine Journal 32 (2023): 1054-1067, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07507-1.

[42] L. Chen, B. Zhu, H. Z. Zhong, et al., “The Learning Curve of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) Spinal Surgery by CUSUM Analysis,” Frontiers in Surgery 9 (2022): 873691, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.873691.

[43] Y. He, H. Wang, Z. Yu, J. Yin, Y. Jiang, and D. Zhou, “Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Versus Uniportal Full-Endoscopic for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Orthopaedic Science 29, no. 1 (2024): 49-58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2022.10.019.

[44] C. Yuan, B. Wen, and H. Lin, “Clinical Analysis of Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Treatment of Severe Lumbar Disc Herniation With UBE Two-Channel Endoscopy and Foraminal Single-Channel Endoscopy Technique,” Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 2022 (2022): 9264852, https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9264852.

[45] H. W. Jiang, C. D. Chen, B. S. Zhan, Y. L. Wang, P. Tang, and X. S. Jiang, “Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Study,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 17, no. 1 (2022): 30, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5.

[46] J. L. Pao, S. M. Lin, W. C. Chen, and C. H. Chang, “Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis,” Journal of Spine Surgery 6, no. 2 (2020): 438-446, https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2020.03.08.

[47] J. Yin, T. Ma, G. Gao, Q. Chen, and L. Nong, “Early Clinical and Radiologic Evaluation of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy and Bilateral Decompression in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study,” Journal of Neurological Surgery Part A, Central European Neurosurgery (2024), https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2281-2135.

[48] A. Kaen, J. Quillo-Olvera, M. K. Park, et al., “Five-Step Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Surgery for Central Lumbar Canal Stenosis: Z Technique Nuance,” Neurosurgical Focus: Video 10, no. 2 (2024): V3, https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.1.FOCVID23182.

[49] D. H. Heo, D. C. Lee, and C. K. Park, “Comparative Analysis of Three Types of Minimally Invasive Decompressive Surgery for Lumbar Central Stenosis: Biportal Endoscopy, Uniportal Endoscopy, and Microsurgery,” Neurosurgical Focus 46, no. E9 (2019): E9, https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.2.FOCUS197.

[50] G. X. Lin, Z. K. Yao, C. Xin, J. S. Kim, C. M. Chen, and B. S. Hu, “A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Effects of Microscopic Unilateral Laminectomy Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) Versus Biportal Endoscopic ULBD for Lumbar Canal Stenosis,” Frontiers in Surgery 9 (2022): 1002100, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.1002100.

[51] J. L. Pao, “A Review of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis,” International Journal of Spine Surgery 15, no. S65-S71 (2021): S65-S71, https://doi.org/10.14444/8165.

[52] C. Zhu, L. Zhang, H. Pan, and W. Zhang, “Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Cages Using a Biportal Endoscopic Technique With a Third Portal,” Acta Neurochirurgica 164 (2022): 2343-2347, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-022-05324-5.

[53] F. G. Sigmundsson, B. Jonsson, and B. Stromqvist, “Impact of Pain on Function and Health Related Quality of Life in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. A Register Study of 14,821 Patients,” Spine 38 (2013): E937-E945, https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182955989.

[54] M. Zotti, F. V. Boas, T. Clifton, M. Piche, W. W. Yoon, and B. Freeman, “Does Pre-Operative Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Predict Clinical Outcomes Following Lumbar Spinal Decompression for Symptomatic Spinal Stenosis?,” European Spine Journal 26, no. 10 (2017): 2589-2597, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-4986-x.

[55] W. Wang, Z. Sun, W. Li, and Z. Chen, “The Effect of Paraspinal Muscle on Functional Status and Recovery in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 15, no. 1 (2020): 235, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01751-1.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.