OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of uniportal and biportal lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: A retrospective pair-matched case-control analysis of 72 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis was performed. According to the surgical procedure used, the patients were classified into 2 groups: 1) uniportal LE-ULBD and 2) biportal LE-ULBD. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale score, Oswestry Disability Index score, and Macnab criteria, and the results were compared between the groups. RESULTS: All patients were successfully treated with either uniportal or biportal LE-ULBD. The surgical duration in the biportal LE-ULBD group was significantly shorter than in the uniportal LE-ULBD group (P < 0.001). The time to ambulation and the length of hospitalization in the 2 groups were not significantly different. The visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores improved significantly after surgery in both groups (P < 0.001). Based on the Macnab criteria, 33 (91.7%) patients in the uniportal LE-ULBD group and 34 (94.4%) patients in the biportal LE-ULBD group were rated as having an excellent or good outcome. Additionally, intraoperative epineurium injury was observed in both the LE-ULBD groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both uniportal and biportal LE-ULBD procedures are safe and effective for treating patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. It is more feasible to decompress the spinal canal during biportal LE-ULBD than during uniportal LE-ULBD.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of uniportal and biportal lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (LE-ULBD) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: A retrospective pair-matched case-control analysis of 72 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis was performed. According to the surgical procedure used, the patients were classified into 2 groups: 1) uniportal LE-ULBD and 2) biportal LE-ULBD. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale score, Oswestry Disability Index score, and Macnab criteria, and the results were compared between the groups. RESULTS: All patients were successfully treated with either uniportal or biportal LE-ULBD. The surgical duration in the biportal LE-ULBD group was significantly shorter than in the uniportal LE-ULBD group (P < 0.001). The time to ambulation and the length of hospitalization in the 2 groups were not significantly different. The visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores improved significantly after surgery in both groups (P < 0.001). Based on the Macnab criteria, 33 (91.7%) patients in the uniportal LE-ULBD group and 34 (94.4%) patients in the biportal LE-ULBD group were rated as having an excellent or good outcome. Additionally, intraoperative epineurium injury was observed in both the LE-ULBD groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both uniportal and biportal LE-ULBD procedures are safe and effective for treating patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. It is more feasible to decompress the spinal canal during biportal LE-ULBD than during uniportal LE-ULBD.