Clinical Report: Evaluation of UBE-TLIF vs MIS-TLIF for Lumbar Spinal Brucellosis
Overview
This study compares the clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in treating lumbar spinal brucellosis. UBE-TLIF demonstrated advantages in operative time, blood loss, and early postoperative pain control.
Background
Lumbar spinal brucellosis is a significant complication of brucellosis, characterized by vertebral destruction and nerve compression, necessitating surgical intervention when conservative treatment fails. Traditional open surgery poses risks of high trauma and complications, prompting the exploration of minimally invasive techniques like UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF, which promise reduced recovery times and improved outcomes.
Data Highlights
Parameter
UBE-TLIF
MIS-TLIF
Operative Time
Shorter
Longer
Estimated Blood Loss
Less
More
Incision Length
Smaller
Larger
Hospital Stay
Shorter
Longer
Bone Fusion Rate
96.88%
93.33%
MacNab Excellent/Good Rate
93.75%
90.00%
Key Findings
UBE-TLIF resulted in significantly shorter operative time and hospital stay compared to MIS-TLIF.
UBE-TLIF had less intraoperative blood loss and smaller incision lengths.
Both surgical approaches showed significant improvements in pain scores and functional outcomes postoperatively.
Complication rates were comparable between UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF.
No recurrence or implant-related complications were reported in either group.
Clinical Implications
Surgeons may consider UBE-TLIF as a preferred option for treating lumbar spinal brucellosis due to its minimally invasive benefits, including reduced operative time and blood loss. Both surgical techniques are effective, but UBE-TLIF may enhance early postoperative recovery and pain management.
Conclusion
UBE-TLIF and MIS-TLIF are both effective and safe surgical options for lumbar spinal brucellosis, with UBE-TLIF offering distinct advantages in terms of surgical trauma and recovery. Further studies may help refine surgical strategies for optimal patient outcomes.
Researchers compare personalized versus standard prehabilitation and examine functional, immune, and postoperative outcomes before major elective surgery.
