Clinical Comparison of Traditional Open Fusion Surgery and Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of traditional open fusion surgery and unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery in treating lumbar spinal stenosis, and to provide a reference for clinicians in choosing the surgical approach. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 80 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent surgery at Yulin Red Cross Hospital from January 2020 to February 2024. The patients were divided into two groups: one group underwent traditional open fusion surgery, while the other group underwent unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery. The study compared the general clinical data of the two groups, as well as various perioperative data, including surgical time, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, serum inflammatory markers, short-term and long-term complications, and patient satisfaction with the surgical procedures. Conclusion: (1) UBE has demonstrated its advantages, such as precise positioning, small incisions, minimal bleeding, reduced postoperative pain, higher patient satisfaction, and shortened hospital stay for patients.(2) Traditional open fusion provides a larger surgical field and operating space during the procedure. However, the extensive exposure, long incisions, and prolonged recovery time are its drawbacks.(3) In clinical decision-making, individual patient differences, the complexity of the condition, and medical resources should be comprehensively considered. The choice of surgical method should take into account multiple factors to achieve the best clinical outcomes.