
==== Front
BMC Musculoskelet Disord
BMC Musculoskelet Disord
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
1471-2474
BioMed Central London

7825
10.1186/s12891-024-07825-z
Research
Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal and percutaneous endoscopic techniques in unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis
Tang Zhongxin
Tan Jun
Shen Mingkui
Yang Hejun hejunyang02@163.com

https://ror.org/03t65z939 grid.508206.9 Department of Spine Surgery, The Third People’s Hospital of Henan Province, Zhengzhou, Henan 450006 P. R. China
5 9 2024
5 9 2024
2024
25 71315 12 2023
27 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Background

Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) has yielded positive results in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Unilateral biportal ULBD (UB-ULBD) and percutaneous endoscopic ULBD (PE-ULBD) are gaining popularity because of the progress that has been made in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the radiographic and clinical results of UB-ULBD and PE-ULBD.

Methods

This study retrospectively enrolled patients who underwent ULBD surgery for LSS. The patients were categorized into two groups on the basis of the surgical method: the UB-ULBD group and the PE-ULBD group. Data on the general demographic data, surgical details, clinical efficacy, radiography and complications were compared between the two groups were compared. The minimum follow-up duration was 12 months.

Results

A total of 113 LSS patients who had undergone ULBD at our institution were included, of whom 61 patients underwent UB-ULBD surgery and 52 underwent PE-ULBD surgery. The UB-ULBD group had a significantly shorter operation time (P < 0.05). The facet was significantly better preserved in the UB-ULBD group than in the PE-ULBD group, and the angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection in the UE-ULBD group was significantly smaller (P < 0.05). The ODI score, VAS score and modified Macnab criteria improved postoperatively in both groups. The UB-ULBD group had a 95.08% rate of excellent or good patient outcomes, whereas the PE-ULBD group had a 92.30% rate.

Conclusion

Both UB-ULBD and PE-ULBD can provide favourable clinical outcomes when used to treat LSS. UB-ULBD is beneficial because of its shorter operation time, smaller angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection and better facet preservation, making it a viable and safe option for treating LSS while ensuring spinal stability.

Keywords

Lumbar spinal stenosis
Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression
Unilateral biportal endoscopy
Percutaneous endoscopic
The National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaYu Wei Medical Letter [2023] No.30 Yu Wei Medical Letter [2023] No.30 Henan Province medical science and technology research plan joint construction projectLHGJ20230670 LHGJ20230670 issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a prevalent degenerative disease that affects adults aged 60 years and older and is frequently characterized by intermittent neurological claudication, back pain, and radicular leg pain [1]. Disc degeneration and loss of disc height are the primary causes of spinal canal narrowing and compression of neural structures [2]. For individuals with significant difficulty walking and ongoing radicular pain that does not improve with conservative treatments such as physical therapy, medication, and nerve-block procedures, surgical intervention is recommended. Laminectomy is the standard procedure for surgical decompression [3].

Traditional extensive decompression surgery often involves destruction of the supraspinal/interspinal ligament complex, dissection, and extensive traction of the bilateral paraspinal muscles (especially the multifidus muscles) [4]. Biomechanical studies have shown that the composite structures behind the spine, such as the spinous processes, supraspinous and interspinous ligaments, facet joints, and articular processes, are crucial for maintaining spinal stability [5]. Therefore, minimizing muscle traction damage, avoiding separation of the tendinous structures behind the spine from their bone attachment points, and maintaining the integrity of the lumbar fascia are crucial for maintaining long-term spinal stability [6, 7].

To maintain the midline structure, McCulloch et al. [8]. introduced the microsurgical method known as unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD), which can fully maintain more than 80% of the degree of spinal stress and reduce facet joints damage [9]. In recent years, the introduction of endoscopes and other related instruments has facilitated the ongoing development of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for the treatment of LSS.

Several MIS alternatives, notably, percutaneous endoscopy (PE) and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE), have been proposed to overcome these problems [10]. However, the learning curve is steep for PE, and the operating equipment is limited by the rigid sleeve, which accounts for the difficulty and high risks associated with bilateral decompression [11]. A previous study revealed that UBE is an effective and safe surgery that can achieve sufficient decompression of lumbar disc herniation with satisfactory early follow-up outcomes [12].

As the latest in endoscopic spine surgeries, PELD-ULBD (PE-ULBD) and UBE-ULBD (UB-ULBD) have distinctive technical characteristics [13]. Nevertheless, only a few comparative studies have assessed the clinical efficacy of PE-ULBD and UBE-ULBD for the treatment of LSS, and these studies are limited by small patient populations and rarely compare the radiological outcomes of the two surgical methods [14, 15]. Therefore, the aim of the present investigation was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of PE-ULBD and UB-ULBD for the treatment of LSS, in order to assess their effectiveness and safety.

Methods

Patient population

We retrospectively reviewed the data of hospitalized patients who underwent ULBD surgery by surgeons at a single institution between January 2020 and October 2022. The surgeon explained the advantages and disadvantages of the two surgical methods and the possible complications to the patients before the operation, and the patients chose the surgical method. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical method used: the UB-ULBD group and the PE-ULBD group. All patients met the clinical and radiological standards for LSS. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) typical intermittent claudication symptoms before surgery (excluding vascular claudication); (2) back pain and neurological symptoms and signs; (3) a diagnosis of single-level LSS on the basis of clinical history, physical examination, and imaging studies; (4) ineffective treatment after 3 months or more of conservative treatment; and (5) at least one year of postoperative follow-up. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) a history of previous spinal surgery or signs of lumbar instability or other abnormalities (spinal tumor, bone infection, or progressive neurological deficits); (2) multilevel spinal stenosis; (3) severe internal medical conditions and inability to tolerate surgery in the prone position; and (4) incomplete radiological or treatment information.

Surgical techniques

PE-ULBD

The patient was placed in the prone position, and general anaesthesia or local anaesthesia was induced according to the patient’s situation. After successful anaesthesia, fluoroscopy was performed to determine the location and level of the lesion. The puncture point was located 1 cm away from the midline, and the working sleeve was inserted into the posterior ligamentum flavum and intervertebral space to remove soft tissue from the field of view, fully exposing the vertebral plate, facet joints, and base of the spinous process. The radiofrequency probe and arthroscopic forceps were used for ipsilateral partial laminectomy and facetectomy. After confirming that the ipsilateral recess and walking root were fully decompressed, the angle of the endoscope was adjusted, and the junction between the lamina and the spinous process, the bottom of the spinous process base and the ventral side of the opposite lamina were ground step by step. Afterwards, the contralateral compressed nerve root was fully decompressed, and the lateral recess was expanded. Finally, other narrowing of the bilateral lateral recess and nerve roots was determined (Fig. 1. a-b).

The criteria for conversion from local to general anaesthesia were as follows: (1) inability to tolerate pain; (2) discomfort or excessive agitation; and (3) low level of cooperation with the surgery.

UB-ULBD

The patient was placed in the prone position after general anaesthesia. The lesion site and corresponding intervertebral space were determined via fluoroscopy. The incision was made 1 cm next to the spinous process and 2 cm above and below the intervertebral space with a scalpel, and a continuous dilator was inserted into the vertebral plate. After the dilator was removed, an observation channel and a working channel were established. A radiofrequency probe was used through the working channel to fully peel off the surrounding soft tissue until the margin of the lower lamina was completely exposed. An automated drill and traditional Kerrison punches were used for ipsilateral hemilaminotomy to remove hypertrophic facet joints and lamina and to peel off the ligamentum flavum, which ensured that the ipsilateral dural sac and nerve root were fully decompressed. When contralateral decompression was performed, the fissure in the ligamentum flavum and the lower edge of the spinous process root were first identified, and then part of the basal part of the spinous process was removed. A drill and Kerrison punches were used to remove the ventral part of the contralateral vertebral plate, and if necessary, the inner edge of the contralateral lower articular process was removed to separate the contralateral ligamentum flavum from the attachment point of the vertebral plate. Finally, the contralateral dural sac and nerve root were sufficiently decompressed to ensure complete freedom (Fig. 1. c-d).

Fig. 1 a-b) The PE-ULBD; c-d) The UB-ULBD

Clinical evaluation

Patients had scheduled outpatient visits at 3 days and 3 and 12 months after the operation. We recorded and compared basic data such as age, sex, BMI, symptom duration and disc level, as well as all perioperative data, including operating time, estimated blood loss, hospitalization time and complications. To measure the degree of surgical invasiveness, the levels of creatine phosphokinase (CPK) in the serum were assessed both before and one day after surgery. The ratio of postoperative to preoperative CPK levels was used to illustrate the magnitude of change. C-reactive protein (CRP) levels before and 3 days after surgery were used to assess the presence of inflammation in the body. Follow-up clinical assessments involved the use of the visual analogue scale (VAS) to score back and leg pain, along with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patient satisfaction was represented by modified MacNab scores and was investigated preoperatively and at the postoperative follow-up.

The angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection and the facet preservation rate were obtained from computed tomography (CT) images (Fig. 2). A standardized measurement guide was used, which included identifying and marking the centre of the facet joint, the tips of the superior and inferior articular processes, and the midline of the vertebral body. The angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection and the facet preservation rate were measured on axial CT images at the level at which the facet joint space was maximally visualized. All the measurements were performed independently by two of the participating surgeons who were blinded to each other’s assessments. To ensure consistency in the measurements, the participating surgeons received training on the measurement protocol prior to the commencement of the study. In cases of discrepancy between the two observers, a consensus meeting was conducted to reach an agreement. This procedure was facilitated by a third senior surgeon when necessary.

Fig. 2 a-b) The ipsilateral facet joint resection angle: the angle between the medial and axial horizontal lines of the ipsilateral facet joint resection area on postoperative lumbar CT; c-d) The facet preservation rate was measured through lumbar CT: facet preservation rate = (E/F) × 100%

Statistical analysis

The data were statistically analysedvia SPSS 22.0 software (IBM Corp, Armonk, New York, USA). Continuous variables are displayed as the means ± standard errors of the means. Demographic characteristics and perioperative outcomes were assessed via independent sample t tests, Fisher’s exact tests, or Mann‒Whitney U tests. The ODI and VAS score for back and leg pain were compared via repeated measures analysis of variance. A P value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

Results

Patient characteristics

The data of 113 LSS patients who had undergone ULBD surgery at our institution were collected, of whom 61 underwent UB-ULBD and 52 underwent PE-ULBD. There were no significant differences in basic demographics, including age, sex, BMI, disc level or symptom duration, between the two groups (Table 1).

Table 1 The general information of UB-ULBD and PE-ULBD

Characteristics	UB-ULBD(n = 61)	PE-ULBD(n = 52)	P value	
Age(years)	61.5 ± 7.08	65.3 ± 6.92	0.56	
Gender (male/female)	27/34	21/31	0.28	
BMI (kg/m²)	25.16 ± 3.34	24.89 ± 3.06	0.11	
Symptom duration (Month)	15.15 ± 2.87	15.30 ± 3.62	0.34	
Disc Level			0.27	
 L3/4	13	11		
 L4/5	31	27		
 L5/S1	17	14		

Surgical outcomes

There were no significant differences in estimated blood loss or hospitalization time between the UB-ULBD group and the PE-ULBD group (P > 0.05). The operation time of the UE-ULBD group was significantly shorter (59.41 ± 11.22 vs. 63.31 ± 12.97, P < 0.05). Postoperative changes in the serum CPK level were similar between the two groups. The facet was better preserved in the UB-ULBD group than in the PE-ULBD group (89.9 ± 6.5% vs. 87.4 ± 7.2%, P < 0.05). Moreover, the angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection in the UE-ULBD group was significantly smaller (86.29 ± 2.15 vs. 91.33 ± 2.88, P < 0.05) (Table 2; Figs. 3 and 4). Four patients underwent conversion from local anaesthesia to general anaesthesia during surgery because of their anxiety and low level of cooperation with the surgery. After transitioning to general anaesthesia, the surgery went smoothly without any abnormal findings.

Table 2 Comparison of perioperative date of UB-ULBD and PE-ULBD

Parameter	UB-ULBD(n = 61)	PE—ULBD(n = 52)	P value	
Operation time (Mins)	59.41 ± 11.22	63.31 ± 12.97	< 0.05	
Estimated blood loss (mL)	51.55 ± 10.27	49.23 ± 11.83	0.24	
Hospitalization time (Day)	3.87 ± 0.88	3.38 ± 0.34	0.76	
CPK ratio	1.33 ± 0.06	1.17 ± 0.11	0.44	
CRP (mg/L)				
 Preoperative	0.10 ± 0.04	0.10 ± 0.03	0.13	
 Postoperative 3 d	1.18 ± 0.23	0.75 ± 0.15	0.69	
Facet preservation (%)	89.9 ± 6.5%	87.4 ± 7.2%	< 0.05	
Angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection (°)	86.29 ± 2.15	91.33 ± 2.88	< 0.05	
Complications(%)	1(1.6%)	2(3.8%)	0.97	

Fig. 3 UB-ULBD: a-b) Preoperative MRI showed hyperplasia of the ligamentum flavum, resulting in compression of the dural sac and spinal cord; c-d) Postoperative shows that dural sac and nerve root compression relieving; e-f) Comparison of preoperative and postoperative CT images show a sufficient bilateral decompression of the lateral recess and partial ipsilateral facet joint destruction

Fig. 4 PE-ULBD: a-b) Preoperative MRI showed lumbar disc herniation with hyperplasia of the ligamentum flavum, resulting in compression of the dural sac and spinal cord; c-d) Postoperative shows that dural sac and nerve root compression relieving; e-f) Comparison of preoperative and postoperative CT images show a sufficient decompression and a bilateral partial facetectomy

Clinical outcomes

The VAS score, ODI score and patient satisfaction score of the two groups were compared. The results revealed improvements in the postoperative VAS and ODI scores in both groups; however, there were no significant differences in the VAS or ODI scores after surgery (P > 0.05). In terms of the modified MacNab criteria, the UB-ULBD group had a 95.08% rate of excellent or good patient outcomes, whereas the PE-ULBD group had a 92.30% rate (Table 3).

Table 3 Comparison of clinical results between the two groups

Parameter	UB-ULBD(n = 61)	PE-ULBD(n = 52)	P value	
VAS for LP				
Preoperative	7.02 ± 1.58	7.08 ± 1.34	0.12	
Postoperative 3 d	1.89 ± 0.97*	2.01 ± 0.76*	0.47	
Postoperative 3 mo	1.67 ± 0.31*	1.81 ± 0.55*	0.33	
Postoperative 12 mo	1.65 ± 0.51*	1.76 ± 0.46*	0.13	
VAS for BP				
Preoperative	6.84 ± 1.35	6.91 ± 1.38	0.54	
Postoperative 3 d	1.91 ± 0.69*	1.73 ± 0.63*	0.22	
Postoperative 3 mo	1.75 ± 0.57*	1.73 ± 0.55*	0.34	
Postoperative 12 mo	1.69 ± 0.46*	1.71 ± 0.56*	0.91	
ODI (%)				
Preoperative	62.71 ± 5.26	62.51 ± 7.21	0.11	
Postoperative 3 d	32.18 ± 3.92*	34.47 ± 2.36*	0.98	
Postoperative 3 mo	23.98 ± 3.31*	23.11 ± 1.44*	0.41	
Postoperative 12 mo	20.21 ± 1.91*	21.11 ± 2.87*	0.55	
Modified MacNab			NS	
Excellent	31	21		
Good	27	27		
Fair	3	4		
Poor	0	0		
Excellence/good rate	58(95.08%)	48(92.30%)		
*Compared with the preoperative value, P < 0.05

Complications

During hospitalization, one patient in the UB-ULBD group experienced temporary leg numbness after surgery. In the PE-ULBD group, two patients reported postoperative dural tears. All three patients were cured without any sequelae after conservative treatment, such as bed rest, analgesia, and nutritional therapy.

Discussion

Currently, the main treatment method for LSS is surgery, and MIS has become the preferred approach in spinal surgery [16–18]. It mainly utilizes small skin incisions to achieve sufficient nerve decompression while preserving soft tissue and bone anatomical structures, reducing muscle traction damage [19, 20]. Compared with traditional surgery, MIS reduces postoperative pain, haemorrhaging and complication rates, and the time required for recovery [21, 22]. Moreover, ULBD can greatly reduce the risk of damage to structures such as facet joints, muscles, and ligaments while fully decompressing the affected nerve [23]. It is currently one of the ideal minimally invasive treatment methods for bilateral lateral recess stenosis with or without central spinal canal stenosis [24]. With the gradual popularization of MIS, the use of the UB-ULBE and PE-ULBD surgical techniques have been widely reported [25, 26]. Nevertheless, few studies have compared the results of the UB-ULBD and PE-ULBD in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes.

Our study revealed that the UE-ULBD group had a shorter surgical time. The possible reason is the restricted view of the surgical field, which has also been reported in related studies [14, 27]. Our data also support the above clinical outcomes. The advantage of UBE is that the endoscope can operate through two channels separately without mutual interference. Moreover, both the endoscope and the working channel can be tilted and moved in any direction, and the field of view will not change when the endoscope is operated through the working channel. These features greatly increase space for the activity and make the surgery more flexible. In contrast, the design of both the endoscope and operating channel in PELD results in an insufficient observation range of the visual field, the need to use small operating tools, a limited range of movement, and relatively low work efficiency. Therefore, the surgery time was shorter in the UB-ULBD group than in the PE-ULBD group.

We measured the average resection angle of the ipsilateral facet joint and the extent of facet preservation in the two groups of patients after surgery. We found that (1) the average resection angle of the ipsilateral facet joint in the UB-ULBD group was significantly smaller than that in the PE-ULBD group and was lower than 90°, and (2) the extent of facet preservation in the UB-ULBD group was greater. This finding indicates that UB-ULBD performs better in terms of ipsilateral facet joint resection and can minimize ipsilateral facet joint damage while fully decompressing the ipsilateral nerve roots. However, PE-ULBD is slightly inadequate in this regard. The possible reasons are the limitations in the types and angles of surgical instruments used for PELD, which require the removal of too many facet joints to achieve sufficient decompression of the ipsilateral nerve roots. In contrast, more conventional surgical instruments can be used for UB-ULBD, especially the 30° arthroscopy system, which can increase the movement angle and range of surgical instruments, increasing the convenience, flexibility, effectiveness, and movement space. These characteristics make it significantly advantageous for removing bony structures and minimizing damage to the ipsilateral facet joints while providing safer and more thorough decompression of the bilateral nerve roots. However, the degree of preservation of facet joints and sufficient decompression of nerve roots are also related to the ability of the surgeons. Another reason for this result may be related to the steep learning curve for PELD, which may limit the widespread adoption of surgery and lead to poor radiological results.

In addition, 3 patients reported postoperative complications, but all the complications spontaneously resolved after conservative therapy without additional intervention. Dural tearing is a common complication of LSS. In this study, two patients in the PE-ULBD group experienced dural tearing as a result of adhesion between the ligamentum flavum and the dural sac. PE-ULBD is a uniportal system, so adhesion between the ligamentum flavum and the dural sac is difficult to detect. Thus, more focus is needed when performing PE-ULBD to treat LSS.

We also compared the clinical outcomes of the two approaches for the treatment of LSS. The postoperative rates of excellent or good patient outcomes were 95.08% in the UE-ULBD group and 92.30% in the PE-ULBD group, surpassing the rates reported in published studies on ULBD surgery for patients with LSS [28]. Our results revealed that the VAS and ODI scores of both groups improved during the follow-up period. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the scoring system used. This outcome could be attributed to the fact that both groups underwent full spine decompression via endoscopic techniques. Moreover, minimizing injury to the multifidus muscle can lead to decreased postoperative back pain and improved functional outcomes. Surgical procedures that cause less muscular damage are associated with reduced atrophy and fatty infiltration. Studies indicate that reduced muscle injury after MIS-ULBD contributes to better long-term clinical results than those observed after traditional open surgery [22, 29]. In our study, both groups presented slight increases in postoperative CPK and CRP levels. The potential explanation lies in the reduced damage caused by the smaller diameter and axial flexibility of endoscopic working cannulas. As a result, the slight difference in leg and back pain between the groups had no significant impact on the functional outcomes or quality of the life of patients.

Our study has several limitations. First, the study design was nonrandomized, which may have introduced sampling bias because it was a single-center retrospective analysis with a relatively small sample size; Second, the follow-up period in this study was limited, which restricts the ability to draw conclusions about the long-term efficacy and impact of the UB-ULBD technique; Third, the long-term spinal stability and lumbar function need further clinical evaluation. Future research with larger sample sizes and extended monitoring is necessary to confirm our findings and to thoroughly evaluate the long-term outcomes.

Conclusions

Both the UB-ULBD and the PE-ULBD can provide good clinical results in the treatment of LSS. The UB-ULBD method offers the benefits of a shorter operation time, a smaller angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection and better facet preservation and may be a practical and safe alternative for treating LSS while maintaining spinal stability.

Acknowledgements

We highly acknowledge the contribution by all the doctors in our department.

Author contributions

Zhongxin Tang: Data curation, Writing- Original draft preparation; Mingkui Shen: Formal analysis, Investigation; Jun Tan: Supervision; Hejun Yang: Writing - Review & Editing.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Yu Wei Medical Letter [2023] No.30) and Henan Province medical science and technology research plan joint construction project (LHGJ20230670).

Data availability

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the the Medical Ethics Committee of the third people’s hospital of henan province. All subjects gave written informed consent to participate in the study. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Abbreviations

LSS Lumbar spinal stenosis

ULBD Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression

MIS Minimally Invasive Surgery

PELD Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy

UBE Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy

CPK Creatine phosphokinase

VAS Visual analog scale

ODI Oswestry disability index for disability

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Katz JN Zimmerman ZE Mass H Makhni MC Diagnosis and management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a review JAMA 2022 327 17 1688 99 10.1001/jama.2022.5921 35503342
Katz JN, Zimmerman ZE, Mass H, Makhni MC. Diagnosis and management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a review. JAMA. 2022;327(17):1688–99.35503342 10.1001/jama.2022.5921
2. Kirkaldy-Willis WH Wedge JH Yong-Hing K Reilly J Pathology and pathogenesis of lumbar spondylosis and stenosis Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1978 3 4 319 28 10.1097/00007632-197812000-00004 741238
Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Wedge JH, Yong-Hing K, Reilly J. Pathology and pathogenesis of lumbar spondylosis and stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1978;3(4):319–28.741238 10.1097/00007632-197812000-00004
3. Birkmeyer NJ Weinstein JN Tosteson AN Tosteson TD Skinner JS Lurie JD Deyo R Wennberg JE Design of the spine patient outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002 27 12 1361 72 10.1097/00007632-200206150-00020 12065987
Birkmeyer NJ, Weinstein JN, Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Skinner JS, Lurie JD, Deyo R, Wennberg JE. Design of the spine patient outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(12):1361–72.12065987 10.1097/00007632-200206150-00020
4. Olszewski AD Yaszemski MJ White AA 3rd: the anatomy of the human lumbar ligamentum flavum. New observations and their surgical importance Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996 21 20 2307 12 10.1097/00007632-199610150-00001 8915063
Olszewski AD, Yaszemski MJ, White AA. 3rd: the anatomy of the human lumbar ligamentum flavum. New observations and their surgical importance. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(20):2307–12.8915063 10.1097/00007632-199610150-00001
5. Lurie J Tomkins-Lane C Management of lumbar spinal stenosis BMJ 2016 352 h6234 10.1136/bmj.h6234 26727925
Lurie J, Tomkins-Lane C. Management of lumbar spinal stenosis. BMJ. 2016;352:h6234.26727925 10.1136/bmj.h6234
6. Hansraj KK, Cammisa FP Jr., O’Leary PF, Crockett HC, Fras CI, Cohen MS, Dorey FJ. Decompressive surgery for typical lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001(384):10–7.
7. Hansraj KK, O’Leary PF, Cammisa FP Jr., Hall JC, Fras CI, Cohen MS, Dorey FJ. Decompression, fusion, and instrumentation surgery for complex lumbar spinal stenosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001(384):18–25.
8. Weiner BK Walker M Brower RS McCulloch JA Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999 24 21 2268 72 10.1097/00007632-199911010-00016 10562995
Weiner BK, Walker M, Brower RS, McCulloch JA. Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(21):2268–72.10562995 10.1097/00007632-199911010-00016
9. Lin PM Internal decompression for multiple levels of lumbar spinal stenosis: a technical note Neurosurgery 1982 11 4 546 9 10.1097/00006123-198210000-00018 7145072
Lin PM. Internal decompression for multiple levels of lumbar spinal stenosis: a technical note. Neurosurgery. 1982;11(4):546–9.7145072 10.1097/00006123-198210000-00018
10. Hermansen E Austevoll IM Hellum C Storheim K Myklebust T Aaen J Banitalebi H Anvar M Rekeland F Brox JI Comparison of 3 different minimally Invasive Surgical techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA Netw Open 2022 5 3 e224291 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4291 35344046
Hermansen E, Austevoll IM, Hellum C, Storheim K, Myklebust T, Aaen J, Banitalebi H, Anvar M, Rekeland F, Brox JI, et al. Comparison of 3 different minimally Invasive Surgical techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(3):e224291.35344046 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4291
11. Yin S Du H Yang W Duan C Feng C Tao H Prevalence of recurrent herniation following percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a Meta-analysis Pain Physician 2018 21 4 337 50 30045591
Yin S, Du H, Yang W, Duan C, Feng C, Tao H. Prevalence of recurrent herniation following percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a Meta-analysis. Pain Physician. 2018;21(4):337–50.30045591
12. Zhuang HX Guo SJ Meng H Lin JS Yang Y Fei Q Unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2023 27 11 4998 5012 37318474
Zhuang HX, Guo SJ, Meng H, Lin JS, Yang Y, Fei Q. Unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2023;27(11):4998–5012.37318474
13. He BL Zhu ZC Lin LQ Sun JF Huang YH Meng C Sun Y Zhang GC Comparison of biportal endoscopic technique and uniportal endoscopic technique in unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decomprssion (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis Asian J Surg 2024 47 1 112 7 10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.05.068 37331857
He BL, Zhu ZC, Lin LQ, Sun JF, Huang YH, Meng C, Sun Y, Zhang GC. Comparison of biportal endoscopic technique and uniportal endoscopic technique in unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decomprssion (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis. Asian J Surg. 2024;47(1):112–7.37331857 10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.05.068
14. Hua W Liao Z Chen C Feng X Ke W Wang B Li S Wang K Zeng X Wu X Clinical outcomes of Uniportal and biportal lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective pair-matched case-control study World Neurosurg 2022 161 e134 45 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.01.079 35093578
Hua W, Liao Z, Chen C, Feng X, Ke W, Wang B, Li S, Wang K, Zeng X, Wu X, et al. Clinical outcomes of Uniportal and biportal lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective pair-matched case-control study. World Neurosurg. 2022;161:e134–45.35093578 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.01.079
15. Lin GX Yao ZK Xin C Kim JS Chen CM Hu BS A meta-analysis of clinical effects of microscopic unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus biportal endoscopic ULBD for lumbar canal stenosis Front Surg 2022 9 1002100 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1002100 36211279
Lin GX, Yao ZK, Xin C, Kim JS, Chen CM, Hu BS. A meta-analysis of clinical effects of microscopic unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus biportal endoscopic ULBD for lumbar canal stenosis. Front Surg. 2022;9:1002100.36211279 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1002100
16. White CA Patel AV Butler LR Amakiri UO Yeshoua BJ Steinberger JM Cho SK Kim JS Comparison of patient preference, understanding, and sentiment for minimally invasive Versus Open spine surgery Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2022 47 4 309 16 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004134 34054115
White CA, Patel AV, Butler LR, Amakiri UO, Yeshoua BJ, Steinberger JM, Cho SK, Kim JS. Comparison of patient preference, understanding, and sentiment for minimally invasive Versus Open spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022;47(4):309–16.34054115 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004134
17. Narain AS Hijji FY Duhancioglu G Haws BE Khechen B Manning BT Colman MW Singh K Patient perceptions of minimally invasive Versus Open spine surgery Clin Spine Surg 2018 31 3 E184 92 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000618 29465423
Narain AS, Hijji FY, Duhancioglu G, Haws BE, Khechen B, Manning BT, Colman MW, Singh K. Patient perceptions of minimally invasive Versus Open spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg. 2018;31(3):E184–92.29465423 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000618
18. Deyo RA Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a balancing act Spine J 2010 10 7 625 7 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.05.006 20620984
Deyo RA. Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a balancing act. Spine J. 2010;10(7):625–7.20620984 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.05.006
19. Carroll AH Dowlati E Molina E Zhao D Altshuler M Mueller KB Sandhu FA Voyadzis JM Does minimally invasive spine surgery improve outcomes in the obese population? A retrospective review of 1442 degenerative lumbar spine surgeries J Neurosurg Spine 2021 35 4 460 70 10.3171/2021.1.SPINE201785 34271544
Carroll AH, Dowlati E, Molina E, Zhao D, Altshuler M, Mueller KB, Sandhu FA, Voyadzis JM. Does minimally invasive spine surgery improve outcomes in the obese population? A retrospective review of 1442 degenerative lumbar spine surgeries. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;35(4):460–70.34271544 10.3171/2021.1.SPINE201785
20. Pokorny G Amaral R Marcelino F Moriguchi R Barreira I Yozo M Pimenta L Minimally invasive versus open surgery for degenerative lumbar pathologies:a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur Spine J 2022 31 10 2502 26 10.1007/s00586-022-07327-3 35871660
Pokorny G, Amaral R, Marcelino F, Moriguchi R, Barreira I, Yozo M, Pimenta L. Minimally invasive versus open surgery for degenerative lumbar pathologies:a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2022;31(10):2502–26.35871660 10.1007/s00586-022-07327-3
21. Khan NR Clark AJ Lee SL Venable GT Rossi NB Foley KT Surgical outcomes for minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion: an updated systematic review and Meta-analysis Neurosurgery 2015 77 6 847 74 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000913 26214320
Khan NR, Clark AJ, Lee SL, Venable GT, Rossi NB, Foley KT. Surgical outcomes for minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion: an updated systematic review and Meta-analysis. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(6):847–74. discussion 874.26214320 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000913
22. Nerland US, Jakola AS, Solheim O, Weber C, Rao V, Lønne G, Solberg TK, Salvesen Ø, Carlsen SM et al. Nygaard Ø P : Minimally invasive decompression versus open laminectomy for central stenosis of the lumbar spine: pragmatic comparative effectiveness study. Bmj 2015, 350:h1603.
23. Spetzger U Bertalanffy H Naujokat C von Keyserlingk DG Gilsbach JM Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: anatomical and surgical considerations Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1997 139 5 392 6 10.1007/BF01808872 9204106
Spetzger U, Bertalanffy H, Naujokat C, von Keyserlingk DG, Gilsbach JM. Unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis. Part I: anatomical and surgical considerations. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1997;139(5):392–6.9204106 10.1007/BF01808872
24. Soliman HM Irrigation endoscopic decompressive laminotomy. A new endoscopic approach for spinal stenosis decompression Spine J 2015 15 10 2282 9 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.07.009 26165475
Soliman HM. Irrigation endoscopic decompressive laminotomy. A new endoscopic approach for spinal stenosis decompression. Spine J. 2015;15(10):2282–9.26165475 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.07.009
25. Choi CM Chung JT Lee SJ Choi DJ How I do it? Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2016 158 3 459 63 10.1007/s00701-015-2670-7 26782827
Choi CM, Chung JT, Lee SJ, Choi DJ. How I do it? Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016;158(3):459–63.26782827 10.1007/s00701-015-2670-7
26. Kim HS Paudel B Jang JS Oh SH Lee S Park JE Jang IT Percutaneous full endoscopic bilateral lumbar decompression of spinal stenosis through Uniportal-Contralateral Approach: techniques and preliminary results World Neurosurg 2017 103 201 9 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.130 28389410
Kim HS, Paudel B, Jang JS, Oh SH, Lee S, Park JE, Jang IT. Percutaneous full endoscopic bilateral lumbar decompression of spinal stenosis through Uniportal-Contralateral Approach: techniques and preliminary results. World Neurosurg. 2017;103:201–9.28389410 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.130
27. Ahn Y Percutaneous endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis Expert Rev Med Devices 2014 11 6 605 16 10.1586/17434440.2014.940314 25033889
Ahn Y. Percutaneous endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014;11(6):605–16.25033889 10.1586/17434440.2014.940314
28. Kim JE Choi DJ Park EJJ Lee HJ Hwang JH Kim MC Oh JS Biportal Endoscopic spinal surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis Asian Spine J 2019 13 2 334 42 10.31616/asj.2018.0210 30959588
Kim JE, Choi DJ, Park EJJ, Lee HJ, Hwang JH, Kim MC, Oh JS. Biportal Endoscopic spinal surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Asian Spine J. 2019;13(2):334–42.30959588 10.31616/asj.2018.0210
29. Fan S Hu Z Zhao F Zhao X Huang Y Fang X Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach Eur Spine J 2010 19 2 316 24 10.1007/s00586-009-1191-6 19876659
Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao F, Zhao X, Huang Y, Fang X. Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(2):316–24.19876659 10.1007/s00586-009-1191-6
