Clinical Efficacy Analysis of Single-Port Endoscopy and Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Tuberculosis

Why It Matters

Faster surgeries and quicker early recovery can lower hospital costs and improve patient throughput in spine centers. Demonstrating comparable long‑term outcomes ensures that efficiency gains do not compromise treatment quality.

Key Takeaways

• OSE reduced operative time versus UBE
• OSE resulted in less intra‑operative blood loss
• Early postoperative VAS scores lower with OSE
• Both techniques achieved comparable intervertebral fusion
• Complication rates similar; all resolved conservatively

Pulse Analysis

Lumbar spinal tuberculosis remains a challenging condition, blending infectious disease management with complex spine surgery. Traditional open debridement carries high morbidity, prompting surgeons to adopt minimally invasive techniques that limit tissue disruption while still achieving thorough debridement and stable fusion. In this context, single‑hole split endoscopy (OSE) and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) represent two evolving platforms that aim to balance visual access with procedural efficiency.

The recent comparative analysis of 48 patients highlights distinct procedural benefits of OSE. Operative time was markedly shorter, and intra‑operative blood loss was lower, translating into reduced anesthesia exposure and faster turnover in the operating suite. Early postoperative metrics, including VAS pain scores at two weeks and one month, favored OSE, suggesting that patients experience less tissue trauma and quicker functional recovery. Importantly, these short‑term gains did not come at the expense of long‑term outcomes; both groups demonstrated similar fusion rates and comparable modified MacNab scores at an average 16‑month follow‑up.

For spine surgeons and hospital administrators, the study underscores a strategic decision point: adopting OSE could enhance efficiency and patient satisfaction without compromising the gold‑standard goal of solid intervertebral fusion. As the field continues to refine endoscopic instrumentation and training pathways, further multicenter trials will be essential to validate these findings across diverse patient populations and to assess cost‑effectiveness at scale. Ultimately, the shift toward streamlined, minimally invasive approaches may reshape standards of care for spinal infections, aligning clinical excellence with economic sustainability.