ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Surg.
Sec. Orthopedic Surgery
This article is part of the Research TopicEndoscopy, Navigation, Robotics, Current Trends and Newer Technologies in the Management of Spinal Disorders. Towards a Paradigm Change in the Clinical Practice.View all 13 articles
Clinical Efficacy Analysis of One-hole Split Endoscopy Surgery versus Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
Provisionally accepted
- 1The Forth clinical Medical College of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China
- 2College of Traditional Chinese Medicine , Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China, Urumqi, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China
- 3TCM hospital affiliated to xinjiang medical university, Urumqi, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) fusion surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 55 patients with DLS admitted between January 2022 and March 2023, including 27 patients in the OSE group and 28 in the UBE group. Perioperative parameters, complications, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and intervertebral space height were recorded and compared preoperatively and at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months postoperatively. At the final follow-up, clinical outcomes and fusion status were evaluated using the modified MacNab criteria and Bridwell fusion grading system.Results: No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups (P > 0.05). The OSE group demonstrated significantly less intraoperative blood loss (51.25 ± 9.12 mL) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (3.1 ± 0.8 days) compared to the UBE group (P < 0.05). One case of dural tear occurred in the OSE group, while one dural tear and one symptomatic epidural hematoma occurred in the UBE group; all complications resolved with conservative treatment. The mean follow-up duration was 16.0 ± 3.5 months. VAS scores for back and leg pain, ODI, and intervertebral space height showed significant improvement at all postoperative time points compared to preoperative values in both groups (P < 0.05). At 1 month postoperatively, the OSE group had a significantly lower VAS score for back pain than the UBE group (P < 0.05). No significant intergroup differences were found in other outcome measures at the remaining time points. At the final follow-up, no significant differences were observed in the fusion rate or the excellent-good rate based on the modified MacNab criteria between the two groups.Conclusion: Both OSE and UBE endoscopic fusion techniques for DLS achieve satisfactory mid-to long-term clinical outcomes and reliable interbody fusion. However, the OSE technique offers minimally invasive advantages, including reduced intraoperative blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, and higher perioperative safety, suggesting it may be a promising alternative for the treatment of DLS.
Keywords: clinical efficacy, Lumbar spondylolisthesis, one-hole split endoscopy, Retrospective study, Unilateral biportal endoscopy
Received: 20 Oct 2025; Accepted: 04 Dec 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Abudurezhake, Huang, Wang, Aili and Ma. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Zhanjun Ma
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.