{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,18]],"date-time":"2025-12-18T06:46:40Z","timestamp":1766040400526,"version":"3.48.0"},"reference-count":19,"publisher":"Frontiers Media SA","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,18]],"date-time":"2025-12-18T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1766016000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["frontiersin.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Front. Surg."],"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Objective<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>To compare the clinical efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of L4\/5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH).<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      A total of eighty-five patients with L4\/5 LDH were enrolled and assigned into two groups: the ULIF group (\n                      <jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u200937) and the PLIF group (\n                      <jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u200948). Data regarding surgical conditions, hospital stay, perioperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and serum inflammatory factor levels were recorded.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      No statistically significant differences were observed in preoperative clinical characteristics (including age, disease duration, BMI, gender distribution, preoperative VAS scores, JOA scores, and serum inflammatory factor levels) between the two groups (all\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&amp;gt;\u20090.05), indicating good comparability. Compared with the PLIF group, the ULIF group was associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss, reduced postoperative drainage volume, and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (all\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&amp;lt;\u20090.05). Additionally, the ULIF group exhibited lower serum levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and C-reactive protein (CRP) at 24\u2005h postoperatively, as well as significantly lower VAS scores and higher JOA scores at 7 and 30 days postoperatively (all\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&amp;lt;\u20090.05). However, the ULIF group was associated with a longer operative time and a higher number of intraoperative C-arm fluoroscopies compared with the PLIF group (both\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009&amp;lt;\u20090.05).\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>ULIF exhibits significant advantages in minimally invasive. Although it requires longer operative time and more intraoperative fluoroscopies, it is associated with reduced blood loss, attenuated inflammatory responses, shorter hospital stay, and superior early postoperative pain and functional recovery, facilitating patient rehabilitation.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3389\/fsurg.2025.1719911","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,18]],"date-time":"2025-12-18T06:43:57Z","timestamp":1766040237000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Comparison of clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and osterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of L4\/5 lumbar disc herniation"],"prefix":"10.3389","volume":"12","author":[{"given":"Kuoang","family":"Deng","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Min","family":"Yang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Yongtao","family":"Xu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"1965","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,18]]},"reference":[{"key":"B1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"4998","DOI":"10.26355\/eurrev_202306_32617","article-title":"Unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"27","author":"Zhuang","year":"2023","journal-title":"Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci"},{"key":"B2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1883","DOI":"10.1007\/s00264-016-3153-z","article-title":"Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar fusion: a systematic review of complications","volume":"40","author":"Hu","year":"2016","journal-title":"Int Orthop"},{"key":"B3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E8","DOI":"10.3171\/2017.5.FOCUS17146","article-title":"Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique: technical note and preliminary clinical results","volume":"43","author":"Heo","year":"2017","journal-title":"Neurosurg Focus"},{"key":"B4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"309","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000004134","article-title":"Comparison of patient preference. Understanding, and sentiment for minimally invasive versus open spine surgery","volume":"47","author":"White","year":"2022","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"key":"B5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"271","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2022.10.001","article-title":"Clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)","volume":"23","author":"Liu","year":"2023","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"key":"B6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1938","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000137069.88904.03","article-title":"Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature","volume":"29","author":"Park","year":"2004","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"key":"B7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2339","DOI":"10.1111\/os.13425","article-title":"Biomechanical evaluation of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with coflex-F and pedicle screw fixation: finite element analysis of static and vibration conditions","volume":"14","author":"Zhu","year":"2022","journal-title":"Orthop Surg"},{"key":"B8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"130","DOI":"10.14245\/ns.1938026.013","article-title":"Endoscopic treatment of extraforaminal entrapment of L5 nerve root (far out syndrome) by unilateral biportal endoscopic approach: technical report and preliminary clinical results","volume":"16","author":"Heo","year":"2019","journal-title":"Neurospine"},{"key":"B9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"489","DOI":"10.20452\/wiitm.2024.17905","article-title":"Learning curve and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopy-unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis","volume":"19","author":"Shao","year":"2024","journal-title":"Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne"},{"key":"B10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E470","DOI":"10.1097\/BSD.0000000000001781","article-title":"Clinical and radiologic outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion on the treatment of single-segment lumbar spinal stenosis with instability, a 2-year follow-up study","volume":"38","author":"Zhang","year":"2025","journal-title":"Clin Spine Surg"},{"key":"B11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"954","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-024-08632-9","article-title":"Learning curve insights in unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spinal procedures: proficiency cutoffs and the impact on efficiency and complications","volume":"34","author":"Peng","year":"2025","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"B12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"229","DOI":"10.2147\/ORR.S336479","article-title":"Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a technical note and an outcome comparison with the conventional minimally invasive fusion","volume":"13","author":"Gatam","year":"2021","journal-title":"Orthop Res Rev"},{"key":"B13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1585783","DOI":"10.3389\/fsurg.2025.1585783","article-title":"Unilateral endoscopic and unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"12","author":"Li","year":"2025","journal-title":"Front Surg"},{"key":"B14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"349","DOI":"10.1016\/j.wneu.2022.06.153","article-title":"Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy with other surgical technics: a systemic review of indications and outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy from the current literature","volume":"168","author":"Kwon","year":"2022","journal-title":"World Neurosurg"},{"key":"B15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"489","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2012.10.034","article-title":"Comparison of open and minimally invasive techniques for posterior lumbar instrumentation and fusion after open anterior lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"13","author":"Kepler","year":"2013","journal-title":"Spine J"},{"key":"B16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"111287","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jocn.2025.111287","article-title":"Fluid and thermal dynamics in endoscopic spine surgery: what surgeons need to know","volume":"136","author":"Kim","year":"2025","journal-title":"J Clin Neurosci"},{"key":"B17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0236296","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0236296","article-title":"Learning curve of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy versus open lumbar microdiscectomy at the L5-S1 level","volume":"15","author":"Son","year":"2020","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"B18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"537","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000005303","article-title":"The role of the lumbar paravertebral muscles in the development of short-term residual pain after lumbar fusion surgery","volume":"50","author":"Sun","year":"2025","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"key":"B19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2049","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2021.07.006","article-title":"Long-term clinical outcome of minimally invasive versus open single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis","volume":"21","author":"Heemskerk","year":"2021","journal-title":"Spine J"}],"container-title":["Frontiers in Surgery"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fsurg.2025.1719911\/full","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,18]],"date-time":"2025-12-18T06:43:58Z","timestamp":1766040238000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fsurg.2025.1719911\/full"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,18]]},"references-count":19,"alternative-id":["10.3389\/fsurg.2025.1719911"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fsurg.2025.1719911","relation":{},"ISSN":["2296-875X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2296-875X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,18]]},"article-number":"1719911"}}