Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Arthroscopic-Assisted Uniportal Spinal Surgery Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study

Huihao Zhang; Zijie Dong; Wei Liu; Feifei Pu; Junqing Cao; Shiyang Du; Mi Huang; Lin Yang; Xiaolong Zhao; Junhui Wang; Hongfeng Ruan; Jing Feng; En Song; Juan Zhou

doi:10.1111/os.70237

Orthopaedic Surgery ›› 2026, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (2) :261 -269. DOI: 10.1111/os.70237

CLINICAL ARTICLE

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Arthroscopic-Assisted Uniportal Spinal Surgery Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study

Author information +

History +

PDF (720KB)

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety profile, and clinical outcomes of AUSS versus PELD in single-level LSS treatment.

Methods: This retrospective comparative study included 68 consecutive LSS patients treated between January 2023 and January 2024: 35 underwent AUSS and 33 underwent PELD. Primary outcomes included total operative time, extracanal working time, intracanal decompression duration, incision length, fluoroscopy exposure time, intraoperative blood loss, preoperative/postoperative day 3 hemoglobin levels, hospitalization duration, total treatment costs, and postoperative complications. Clinical assessments utilized the visual analog scale (VAS) for axial back/leg pain evaluation, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for functional assessment, and modified MacNab criteria for clinical success. Minimum follow-up was 12 months.

Results: All 68 patients completed 12-month follow-up with no demographic disparities between groups. AUSS exhibited superior operative efficiency with significantly shorter total operating time (45.6 ± 3.14 vs. 54.6 ± 5.54 min, p < 0.01) and intracanal decompression time (21.25 ± 2.38 vs. 35.4 ± 3.36 min, p < 0.01), although with marginally prolonged extracanal operating time (27.35 ± 3.28 vs. 18.6 ± 3.54 min, p < 0.01). Fluoroscopy duration was significantly reduced in AUSS (7.45 ± 2.39 vs. 38.38 ± 7.62 s, p < 0.01). AUSS required larger incisions (19.74 ± 2.13 vs. 7.83 ± 1.08 mm, p < 0.01) and resulted in higher estimated blood loss (17.18 ± 6.43 vs. 9.53 ± 1.38 mL, p < 0.05), and higher total costs (21937.44 ± 579.36 vs. 17459.44 ± 589.26 ¥, p < 0.05), though without clinically significant changes in hemoglobin levels (130.24 ± 7.02 vs. 130.31 ± 6.25, p > 0.05) and postoperative hospital stay (6.48 ± 2.72 vs. 6.84 ± 1.93 days, p > 0.05). AUSS had lower postoperative VAS-leg pain scores at early postoperative periods (3 days and 1 month) (p < 0.01) and higher patient satisfaction rates (94.29% vs. 84.85% excellent/good outcomes, p < 0.05). One PELD case required secondary surgical interventions within 12 months for persistent radiculopathy, whereas no AUSS patients required reoperations. Overall complication rates were comparable between groups.

Conclusion: Both techniques showed similar safety. AUSS offers superior operative efficiency, reduced radiation exposure, and better early clinical outcomes compared to PELD for LSS treatment. Despite slightly larger incisions and increased blood loss, AUSS demonstrates enhanced decompression completeness with lower revision rates, suggesting AUSS as a valuable alternative to PELD, particularly for cases requiring comprehensive neural decompression.

Keywords

arthroscopic-assisted uniportal spinal surgery / clinical outcomes / decompression / lumbar spinal stenosis / percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy

Cite this article

Download citation ▾

Huihao Zhang, Zijie Dong, Wei Liu, Feifei Pu, Junqing Cao, Shiyang Du, Mi Huang, Lin Yang, Xiaolong Zhao, Junhui Wang, Hongfeng Ruan, Jing Feng, En Song, Juan Zhou. Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Arthroscopic-Assisted Uniportal Spinal Surgery Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study. Orthopaedic Surgery, 2026, 18 (2) : 261-269 DOI:10.1111/os.70237

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户忘记密码

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within

[1]	J. N. Alpert, “Review of the Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” JAMA 328 (2022): 779–780.

[2]	V. Orhurhu, N. Hussain, and R. D'Souza, “Review of the Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” JAMA 328 (2022): 779.

[3]	K. L. Walter and J. E. O'Toole, “Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” JAMA 328 (2022): 310.

[4]	D. B. Anderson, D. J. Beard, F. Rannou, et al., “Clinical Assessment and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Clinical Dilemmas and Considerations for Surgical Referral,” Lancet Rheumatology 6 (2024): e727–e732.

[5]	J. N. Katz, Z. E. Zimmerman, H. Mass, and M. C. Makhni, “Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Review,” JAMA 327 (2022): 1688–1699.

[6]	R. K. Jensen, B. S. Harhangi, F. Huygen, and B. Koes, “Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” BMJ 373 (2021): n1581.

[7]	K. T. Chen, J. S. Kim, A. P. Huang, A. P.-H. Huang, M. H.-C. Lin, and C.-M. Chen, “Current Indications for Spinal Endoscopic Surgery and Potential for Future Expansion,” Neurospine 20 (2023): 33–42.

[8]	P. N. Drossopoulos, F. C. Ononogbu-Uche, T. Q. Tabarestani, et al., “Evolution of the Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF): From Open to Percutaneous to Patient-Specific,” Journal of Clinical Medicine 13 (2024): 2271.

[9]	C. W. Webb, K. Aguirre, and P. H. Seidenberg, “Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Diagnosis and Management,” American Family Physician 109 (2024): 350–359.

[10]	B. W. Ren, H. M. Zhao, J. H. Wu, et al., “Comparison of Fusion Rate and Clinical Outcomes in Minimally Invasive and Conventional Posterior Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis,” World Neurosurgery 189 (2024): 357–372.

[11]	W. T. Yuh, Y. S. Lee, J. H. Jeon, and I. Choi, “Future of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Insights From Cutting-Edge Technology in the Industrial Field,” Bioengineering (Basel) 10 (2023): 1363.

[12]	G. S. Goh, A. Tay, G. J. Zeng, A. Y. W. Tay, and R. C. C. Soh, “Long-Term Results of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Elderly Patients: A 5-Year Follow-Up Study,” Global Spine Journal 15 (2025): 838–845.

[13]	X. Cheng, B. Bao, Y. Wu, et al., “Clinical Comparison of Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy and Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy for Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniation,” Frontiers in Surgery 9 (2022): 1107883.

[14]	C. I. Ju and S. M. Lee, “Complications and Management of Endoscopic Spinal Surgery,” Neurospine 20 (2023): 56–77.

[15]	P. L. Chu, T. Wang, J. L. Zheng, et al., “Global and Current Research Trends of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy/Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study,” Orthopaedic Surgery 14 (2022): 635–643.

[16]	Z. Liu, S. Hao, X. Li, E. Song, and Y. Yao, “Clinical Efficacy of AUSS/UNSES-TLIF in the Treatment of Single-Segment Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 20 (2025): 352.

[17]	J. Liang, L. Lian, S. Liang, et al., “Efficacy and Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review,” World Neurosurgery 159 (2022): e91–e102.

[18]

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 (2024): 167.

[19]	B. Tan, Q. Y. Yang, B. Fan, and C. Xiong, “Decompression via Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy for Severe Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Comparative Study With Decompression via Open Discectomy,” Frontiers in Neurology 14 (2023): 1132698.

[20]	G. Xia, E. Song, Q. Kong, and X. Li, “Arthroscopic-Assisted Uni-Portal Ligament Flavum Sparing Bone Anchoring Annular Suture Technique for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Case Report and Literature Review,” Medicine (Baltimore) 103 (2024): e39763.

[21]	A. Suzuki and H. Nakamura, “Microendoscopic Lumbar Posterior Decompression Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Literature Review,” Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) 58 (2022): 384.

[22]	M. Pan, Q. Li, S. Li, et al., “Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Indications and Complications,” Pain Physician 23 (2020): 49–56.

[23]	Y. Ahn, S. Lee, S. Son, H. Kim, and J. E. Kim, “Learning Curve for Transforaminal Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Systematic Review,” World Neurosurgery 143 (2020): 471–479.

[24]

S. Zhou, X. Xu, and T. Guo, “Comparison of Short-Term Clinical Outcomes and Muscle Injury in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Undergoing Arthroscopic-Assisted Uni-Portal Spinal Surgery, Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Surgery, and Percutaneous Interlaminar Lumbar Discectomy: A Six-Month Follow-Up,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 20 (2025): 684.

[25]	N. Fang, S. Yan, and A. Yang, “Research Advances in Unilateral Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Review,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 20 (2025): 643.

[26]	L. Tacconi, S. Baldo, G. Merci, and G. Serra, “Transforaminal Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Outcome and Complications in 270 Cases,” Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 64 (2020): 531–536.