Arthroscopic-assisted uni-portal spinal surgery versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and complications
- 1Shunde Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 12 Jinsha Avenue, Shunfengshan, Daliang Subdistrict, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province People’s Republic of China
Abstract
Background: The optimal endoscopic surgical approach for lumbar degenerative diseases remains debated. This meta-analysis compared the clinical performance and safety of arthroscopic-assisted uni-portal spinal surgery (AUSS) versus unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE/BESS). To provide guidance on the choice of surgical approaches of the lumbar degenerative diseases.
Methods: A systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, China National Knowledge Network, Wanfang Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database up to March 28, 2026. Studies comparing AUSS and UBE/BESS for lumbar degenerative conditions were included. We analyzed the extracted data with Review Manager 5.4.
Results: Three studies encompassing 810 patients (419 AUSS, 391 UBE/BESS) were analyzed. The AUSS group demonstrated significantly reduced operative time (MD = -14.72, 95% CI: −22.32 to − 7.12, P = 0.0001), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD =−10.59, 95% CI: −16.92 to − 4.26, P = 0.001), shorter incision length (MD = − 1.43, 95% CI: −1.64 to − 1.22, P < 0.00001), lower Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back pain 3 months post-surgery (MD = -0.14, 95%CI: -0.24 to -0.03, P = 0.01), The excellent and good outcome rate was also higher in the AUSS group (OR = 1.52, 95%CI: 1.01 to 2.28, P = 0.04); No significant between-group differences emerged for hospital stay, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at any postoperative timepoint, or complication rates.
Conclusions: Both techniques are safe and effective for lumbar degenerative diseases, with comparable functional recovery and safety profiles. AUSS appears to be associated with improved surgical efficiency, but these findings are exploratory and require confirmation by high-quality RCTs.
Related
- Clinical outcomes of one-hole split endoscope versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar degenerative diseases
- Tumor-mimicking lumbar intradural disc herniation managed with unilateral biportal endoscopy: a case report
- Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy for Highly Migrated Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Comparative Study With Quantitative MRI-Based Decompression Analysis.
- Biomechanical Comparison of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy and Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Using a Finite Element Model.
- What triggers intraoperative blood pressure/heart rate surges and postoperative hypertonia during unilateral biportal endoscopy?
BibTeX
@article{yan2026arthroscopicassisted,
title = {{Arthroscopic-assisted uni-portal spinal surgery versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and complications}},
author = {Jianbo Yan and Lixin Deng and Donger Zeng and Bingyin Sun},
journal = {BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders},
year = {2026},
month = aug,
doi = {10.1186/s12891-026-10328-8},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-026-10328-8},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Arthroscopic-assisted uni-portal spinal surgery versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and complications
AU - Jianbo Yan
AU - Lixin Deng
AU - Donger Zeng
AU - Bingyin Sun
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/08/08
JO - BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
DO - 10.1186/s12891-026-10328-8
UR - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-026-10328-8
AB - Background: The optimal endoscopic surgical approach for lumbar degenerative diseases remains debated. This meta-analysis compared the clinical performance and safety of arthroscopic-assisted uni-portal spinal surgery (AUSS) versus unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE/BESS). To provide guidance on the choice of surgical approaches of the lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, China National Knowledge Network, Wanfang Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database up to March 28, 2026. Studies comparing AUSS and UBE/BESS for lumbar degenerative conditions were included. We analyzed the extracted data with Review Manager 5.4. Results: Three studies encompassing 810 patients (419 AUSS, 391 UBE/BESS) were analyzed. The AUSS group demonstrated significantly reduced operative time (MD = -14.72, 95% CI: −22.32 to − 7.12, P = 0.0001), lower intraoperative blood loss (MD =−10.59, 95% CI: −16.92 to − 4.26, P = 0.001), shorter incision length (MD = − 1.43, 95% CI: −1.64 to − 1.22, P < 0.00001), lower Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back pain 3 months post-surgery (MD = -0.14, 95%CI: -0.24 to -0.03, P = 0.01), The excellent and good outcome rate was also higher in the AUSS group (OR = 1.52, 95%CI: 1.01 to 2.28, P = 0.04); No significant between-group differences emerged for hospital stay, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at any postoperative timepoint, or complication rates. Conclusions: Both techniques are safe and effective for lumbar degenerative diseases, with comparable functional recovery and safety profiles. AUSS appears to be associated with improved surgical efficiency, but these findings are exploratory and require confirmation by high-quality RCTs.
SN - 1471-2474
ER -