Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression for single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective comparative study involving clinical efficacy and cost analysis
- 1epartment of Orthopaedics, Jingjiang People’s Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, Jingjiang, Jiangsu, China
Abstract
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy and hospitalization medical cost associated with unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (UBED) vs. percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) for the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS).MethodsThis retrospective study included 94 patients with single-segment DLSS, who received surgery between January 2023 and July 2025: 42 in UBED group and 52 in PELD group. Perioperative parameters, including intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy times, operative duration, time to postoperative ambulation, and length of hospital stay, were compared between groups. Additionally, patient-reported outcomes, namely, pain intensity (assessed using visual analog scale, VAS), functional disability (Oswestry disability index, ODI), and neurological function (Japanese Orthopaedic Association, JOA score), were evaluated preoperatively and at follow-up. Longitudinal between-group comparisons were performed using generalized estimating equations (GEE), with preoperative baseline scores as covariates and Bonferroni correction for post-hoc comparisons. Total and partial hospitalization costs were also compared. A generalized linear model (GLM) was employed to identify independent predictors of total hospitalization cost.ResultsWith regard to perioperative parameters, intraoperative blood loss was significantly greater in UBED group than in PELD group, whereas fluoroscopy times were significantly lower in UBED group (p < 0.05). No significant intergroup differences were detected in operative time, time to postoperative ambulation, or length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvements in ODI, VAS, and JOA score from baseline at all follow-up points (p < 0.05). In GEE analysis, UBED group showed lower VAS score for leg pain at 1 month, lower ODI at 1 and 6 months, and higher JOA score at 1 month (p < 0.001). Excellent-good rate was 97.6% in UBED group, significantly higher than that in PELD group (p = 0.039). Complication rate was significantly lower in UBED group (4.76%) than in PELD group (19.23%; p = 0.037). Total hospitalization cost was higher in UBED group than that in PELD group (17.46 vs. 15.82 × 103RMB, p = 0.012). Multivariate regression analysis by GLM confirmed surgical approach, length of hospitalization, and intraoperative bleeding were independent predictors of total hospitalization cost.ConclusionBoth UBED and PELD are safe and effective minimally invasive approaches for single-segment DLSS. UBED was associated with slightly better early functional outcomes at 1 month and a numerically lower complication rate, but at a higher hospitalization cost. However, PELD was associated with lower hospitalization cost. In clinical practice, the selection of operative strategy should be individualized, with consideration given to both the patient's clinical characteristics and socioeconomic circumstances, to optimize the balance between therapeutic benefit and healthcare resource utilization.
Related
- 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 comparative analysis of minimally invasive decompression and minimally invasive fusion with internal fixation in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a finite element study.
- Midterm Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Transarticular Trephonic Plasty-Assisted Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study
- Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Total Disc Replacement with a Viscoelastic Prosthesis for Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease in Young Adults: A Comparative Retrospective Cohort Study
- Comparative analysis of coronal balance with clinical correlation between degenerative and isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study
BibTeX
@article{zhang2026comparison,
title = {{Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression for single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective comparative study involving clinical efficacy and cost analysis}},
author = {Yu Zhang and Jidong Ju and Jinchun Wu},
journal = {Frontiers in Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fmed.2026.1978780},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2026.1978780},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression for single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective comparative study involving clinical efficacy and cost analysis
AU - Yu Zhang
AU - Jidong Ju
AU - Jinchun Wu
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/26
JO - Frontiers in Medicine
DO - 10.3389/fmed.2026.1978780
UR - https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2026.1978780
AB - ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy and hospitalization medical cost associated with unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (UBED) vs. percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) for the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS).MethodsThis retrospective study included 94 patients with single-segment DLSS, who received surgery between January 2023 and July 2025: 42 in UBED group and 52 in PELD group. Perioperative parameters, including intraoperative blood loss, fluoroscopy times, operative duration, time to postoperative ambulation, and length of hospital stay, were compared between groups. Additionally, patient-reported outcomes, namely, pain intensity (assessed using visual analog scale, VAS), functional disability (Oswestry disability index, ODI), and neurological function (Japanese Orthopaedic Association, JOA score), were evaluated preoperatively and at follow-up. Longitudinal between-group comparisons were performed using generalized estimating equations (GEE), with preoperative baseline scores as covariates and Bonferroni correction for post-hoc comparisons. Total and partial hospitalization costs were also compared. A generalized linear model (GLM) was employed to identify independent predictors of total hospitalization cost.ResultsWith regard to perioperative parameters, intraoperative blood loss was significantly greater in UBED group than in PELD group, whereas fluoroscopy times were significantly lower in UBED group (p < 0.05). No significant intergroup differences were detected in operative time, time to postoperative ambulation, or length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvements in ODI, VAS, and JOA score from baseline at all follow-up points (p < 0.05). In GEE analysis, UBED group showed lower VAS score for leg pain at 1 month, lower ODI at 1 and 6 months, and higher JOA score at 1 month (p < 0.001). Excellent-good rate was 97.6% in UBED group, significantly higher than that in PELD group (p = 0.039). Complication rate was significantly lower in UBED group (4.76%) than in PELD group (19.23%; p = 0.037). Total hospitalization cost was higher in UBED group than that in PELD group (17.46 vs. 15.82 × 103RMB, p = 0.012). Multivariate regression analysis by GLM confirmed surgical approach, length of hospitalization, and intraoperative bleeding were independent predictors of total hospitalization cost.ConclusionBoth UBED and PELD are safe and effective minimally invasive approaches for single-segment DLSS. UBED was associated with slightly better early functional outcomes at 1 month and a numerically lower complication rate, but at a higher hospitalization cost. However, PELD was associated with lower hospitalization cost. In clinical practice, the selection of operative strategy should be individualized, with consideration given to both the patient's clinical characteristics and socioeconomic circumstances, to optimize the balance between therapeutic benefit and healthcare resource utilization.
SN - 2296-858X
ER -