PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 4, 2026World Neurosurgery0 citationsOpen Access

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Unilateral Hemilaminectomy, Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression, and Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Surgery for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Pathology-Stratified Exploratory Subgroup Analyses

View Full Paper
JRJuan Fernando Ramon-CuellarFHFernando HakimDADiego Gomez Amarillo

Key Points

  • To compare the clinical efficacy, safety, and perioperative efficiency of three lumbar decompression techniques and assess variations by pathology.
  • Conducted PRISMA 2020 meta-analysis of prospective studies from six databases (2020–2024) with ≥30 patients per arm and ≥6-month follow-up.
  • Assessed risk of bias using RoB 2, NOS, and ROBINS-I; applied random-effects REML models with Hartung-Knapp adjustment for analyses.
  • Included 22 studies (8 RCTs, 14 cohorts) totaling 3,362 patients.
  • UBE and PTES showed significant reductions in 12-month ODI compared to UH (UBE: MD −5.8, 95% CI −8.1 to −3.5; PTES: MD −3.2, 95% CI −5.4 to −1.0).
  • Endoscopic techniques demonstrated lower overall complication rates (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46–0.83), with PTES notably reducing dural tears (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27–0.69) and reoperations (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40–0.76).
  • Pooled ODI differences were below MCID thresholds, signaling the need for further randomized trials to confirm exploratory findings.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Three minimally invasive lumbar decompression strategies—unilateral hemilaminectomy (UH), unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (UBE), and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES)—are widely used for lumbar degenerative disease, but pathology-stratified comparative evidence remains limited. Objectives To compare clinical efficacy, perioperative efficiency, and safety of UH, UBE, and PTES, and to explore whether comparative effect estimates vary by pathology subtype. Methods PRISMA 2020 meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD420261379841). Six databases (2020–2024) were screened for prospective comparative studies (≥30 patients/arm; ≥6-month follow-up). Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, NOS, and ROBINS-I. Random-effects REML models with Hartung-Knapp adjustment were applied; three-arm trials were handled per Cochrane §23.1. MCIDs were pre-specified (ODI=10; VAS-leg=1.5; VAS-back=2). Subgroup analyses were exploratory. Results Twenty-two studies (8 RCTs, 14 cohorts; N=3,362) were included. UBE and PTES were associated with statistically significant, below-MCID reductions in 12-month ODI versus UH (UBE: MD −5.8, 95% CI −8.1 to −3.5; PTES: MD −3.2, 95% CI −5.4 to −1.0). Exploratory pathology-stratified analyses suggested between-stratum variation in point estimates. Endoscopic techniques reduced overall complications (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46–0.83), PTES dural tear (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27–0.69), and reoperation (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40–0.76). GRADE certainty ranged from moderate to high. Conclusions Pooled ODI differences remained below MCID thresholds and do not support strong recommendations for technique selection. Exploratory pathology-related signals require confirmation in adequately powered randomized trials. Observed differences in perioperative efficiency and complication profiles may nevertheless contribute to multidisciplinary surgical planning and individualized anatomical decision-making in selected patients with lumbar degenerative disease during clinical practice.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ramon-Cuellar et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a211689d499ed480b16f77dhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2026.125085
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper