Skip to main content
JDRS · Open access journal
Joint Diseases and
Related Surgery
Online manuscript submissionSubmit a manuscript e-ISSN 2687-4792

Review · Open access

Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications of biportal and uniportal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PDF Cite this article

Jun Li

Department of Orthopaedic, The Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China

ORCID: 0000-0003-3243-317X

Ting Zhang

Center of Obesity and Metabolic Diseases, Department of General Surgery, The Third People’s Hospital of Chengdu, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China

ORCID: 0000-0003-3473-956X

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and complication rates of decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopy (PE) in cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR).

Materials and methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted up to April 2024 across multiple databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data, focusing on clinical studies that compare UBE with PE for posterior foraminotomy and discectomy decompression in CSR. The meta-analysis was performed with an emphasis on evaluating clinical outcomes such as operation time, blood loss, incision length, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck pain and arm pain, and complications.

Results: Out of an initial 1,041 studies identified from electronic databases, eight were deemed eligible based on title, abstract, and full-text screening. These studies involved 552 patients (269 males, 283 females; mean age: 53.9±11.4 years; range, 30 to 79 years), with 287 in the UBE group and 265 in the PE group. Meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in operation time between UBE and PE (mean difference [MD]=–3.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]:–19.38, 12.02; p=0.65). However, both blood loss (MD=17.01; 95% CI: 2.61, 31.41; p=0.02) and incision length (MD=11.62; 95% CI: 9.23, 14.01; p<0.00001) were significantly lower in the PE group compared to the UBE group. Regarding clinical outcomes, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of NDI (MD=0.12; 95% CI:–0.10, 0.34; 0.28), VAS for neck pain (MD=–0.06; 95% CI:–0.19, 0.06; p=0.32), VAS for arm pain (MD=–0.14; 95% CI:–0.26, –0.01; p=0.84), or complications (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 0.54, 2.10; p=0.85).

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that there are no significant disparities in clinical outcomes between UBE and PE, encompassing NDI, VAS for arm pain, and VAS for neck pain, as well as complication rates. Notably, compared to PE, UBE results in increased bleeding and longer incision lengths when treating CSR, without substantially reducing operation time.

Declarations

Author Contributions

Contributed to the conceptualization and design of the study, systematic literature search and data analysis, contributing significantly to the interpretation of the data: J.L., T.Z.; Was responsible for drafting the manuscript and performing the statistical review: J.L.; Provided a critical review of the manuscript and took primary responsibility for the final content: T.Z.; All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Financial Disclosure

This study was supported by Sichuan Provincial Natural Science Foundation (2024NSFSC1619).

Data Sharing Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Luyao H, Xiaoxiao Y, Tianxiao F, Yuandong L, Ping Wang. Management of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: A systematic review. Global Spine J 2022;12:1912-24. DOI: 10.1177/21925682221075290.
  2. Maraş Y, Tokdemir G, Üreten K, Atalar E, Duran S, Maraş H. Diagnosis of osteoarthritic changes, loss of cervical lordosis, and disc space narrowing on cervical radiographs with deep learning methods. Jt Dis Relat Surg 2022;33:93-101. DOI: 10.52312/jdrs.2022.445.
  3. Truumees E, Herkowitz HN. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy. Instr Course Lect 2000;49:339-60.
  4. Epstein NE. A review of complication rates for anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF). Surg Neurol Int 2019;10:100. DOI: 10.25259/SNI-191-2019.
  5. Broida SE, Murakami K, Abedi A, Meisel HJ, Hsieh P, Wang J, et al. Clinical risk factors associated with the development of adjacent segment disease in patients undergoing ACDF: A systematic review. Spine J 2023;23:146-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.08.011.
  6. Bębenek A, Godlewski B. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with and without plating: A comparison of radiological and clinical outcomes. Adv Clin Exp Med 2023. DOI: 10.17219/acem/172062.
  7. Robertson SC, Ashley MR. Complications of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Acta Neurochir Suppl 2023;130:169-78. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-12887-6_20.
  8. Ruetten S, Komp M, Merk H, Godolias G. A new fullendoscopic technique for cervical posterior foraminotomy in the treatment of lateral disc herniations using 6.9-mm endoscopes: Prospective 2-year results of 87 patients. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2007;50:219-26. DOI: 10.1055/s2007-985860.
  9. Luo RJ, Song Y, Liao ZW, Yin HP, Zhan SF, Lu SD, et al. Keyhole foraminotomy via a percutaneous posterior full-endoscopic approach for cervical radiculopathy: An advanced procedure and clinical study. Curr Med Sci 2020;40:1170-6. DOI: 10.1007/s11596-020-2299-5.
  10. Tong Y, Huang Z, Hu C, Fan Z, Bian F, Yang F, et al. A comparison study of posterior cervical percutaneous endoscopic ventral bony decompression and simple dorsal decompression treatment in cervical spondylotic radiculopathy caused by cervical foraminal and/or lateral spinal stenosis: A clinical retrospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020;21:290. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03313-2.
  11. Shi M, Wang C, Wang H, Ding X, Feng J, Zhou L, et al. Posterior cervical full-endoscopic technique for the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy with foraminal bony stenosis: A retrospective study. Front Surg 2023;9:1035758. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1035758.
  12. Zhang Y, Zhu H, Zhou Z, Sun Y, Shen X, Wu J, et al. Deep learning-based cervical spine posterior percutaneous endoscopic disc nucleus resection for the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. J Healthc Eng 2021;2021:7245566. DOI: 10.1155/2021/7245566.
  13. Yao R, Yan M, Liang Q, Wang H, Liu Z, Li F, et al. Clinical efficacy and learning curve of posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical laminoforaminotomy for patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. Medicine (Baltimore) 2022;101:e30401. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030401.
  14. Deng Y, Yang M, Xia C, Chen Y, Xie Z. Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression for symptomatic thoracic ossification of the ligamentum flavum: A case control study. Int Orthop 2022;46:2071-80. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-022-05484-0.
  15. 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;27:4998-5012. DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202306_32617.
  16. Park DK, Weng C, Zakko P, Choi DJ. Unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar disc herniation. JBJS Essent Surg Tech 2023;13:e22.00020. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.22.00020.
  17. Tan B, Yang QY, Fan B, Xiong C. Decompression via unilateral biportal endoscopy for severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: A comparative study with decompression via open discectomy. Front Neurol 2023;14:1132698. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1132698.
  18. Zhang P, Jin Y, Zhu B, Zheng M, Ying X, Zheng Q. Unilateral biportal endoscopic foraminotomy and diskectomy combined with piezosurgery for treating cervical spondylotic radiculopathy with neuropathic radicular pain. Front Neurol 2023;14:1100641. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1100641.
  19. Wang D, Xu J, Zhu C, Zhang W, Pan H. Comparison of outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic and percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical keyhole surgeries. Medicina (Kaunas) 2023;59:437. DOI: 10.3390/medicina59030437.
  20. Kim JY, Hong HJ, Lee DC, Kim TH, Hwang JS, Park CK. Comparative analysis of 3 types of minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy for foraminal stenosis, uniportal-, biportal endoscopy, and microsurgery: Radiologic and midterm clinical outcomes. Neurospine 2022;19:212-23. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2142942.471.
  21. Kang MS, You KH, Han SY, Park SM, Choi JY, Park HJ. Percutaneous full-endoscopic versus biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy for unilateral cervical foraminal disc disease. Clin Orthop Surg 2022;14:539-47. DOI: 10.4055/cios22050.
  22. Zhao Z. Retrospective analysis of the early clinical efficacy of large channel and double channel endoscopy in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy [D]. CDSU 2023. doi: 10.26987d.cnki.gcdtc.2023.000276.
  23. Yu X, Zhao J, Zhao Z, Li X, Fu G, Dai G, et al. Efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy technique in the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. Journal of Binzhou Medical University 2023;46:259-262.
  24. Yan M, Guo S, Fu Q, Tang G, Liu Y, Li X. Comparison of clinical efficacies between three endoscopic surgeries in treating cervical spondylotic radiclllopathy. Chinese Journal of Spine and Spine Cord 2023(7):610-618.
  25. Zhong Z, Hu Q, Huang L, Zhang S, Zhou M. Unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy: An outcome comparison with the full-endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy. Clin Spine Surg 2024;37:23-30. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001507.
  26. Xie G, Zhu C, Pan H, Zhang W. A comparison of posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy intreatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. Jiangsu Medical Journal 2024;50:20-25.
  27. Xu B, Wu M, Yang Y, Wu J, Chen L, Tan W. Effects of acupuncture at myofascial trigger points combined with sling exercise therapy on clinical recovery and cervical spine biomechanics in patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. Int J Neurosci 2024:1-7. DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2024.2327402.
  28. Xiao LX, Liu CS, Zhong SZ, Huang WH. Effect of a traction exercise neck brace on cervical spondylopathy radiculopathy: A clinical study and finite element analysis. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2021;2021:8825150. DOI: 10.1155/2021/8825150.
  29. Emami A, Coban D, Changoor S, Dunn C, Sahai N, Sinha K, et al. Comparing mid-term outcomes between ACDF and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2022;47:324-30. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004140.
  30. Jiang HW, Chen CD, Zhan BS, Wang YL, Tang P, Jiang XS. Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: A retrospective study. J Orthop Surg Res 2022;17:30. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-02929-5.
  31. Hao J, Cheng J, Xue H, Zhang F. Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for single l4/5-level lumbar disk herniation. Pain Pract 2022;22:191-9. DOI: 10.1111/papr.13078.
  32. Atik OŞ. Writing for Joint Diseases and Related Surgery (JDRS): There is something new and interesting in this article! Jt Dis Relat Surg 2023;34:533. DOI: 10.52312/jdrs.2023.57916.