<- Back to digest

Spine - 2026-03-20 - Journal Article

Frailty-Modulated Outcomes After Microscopic Versus Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Without Instability.

Pür B, Yılar S, Dağ İ, Kaya S

retrospective cohortLOE IIIn = 180 (90 per group)12 months

Topics

spine
PMID: 41861038DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000005696View on PubMed ->

Key Takeaway

UBE-assisted ULBD achieved clinical success in 92.2% vs 78.9% for microscopic decompression (P=0.012), with superior multifidus preservation and a frailty-specific outcome advantage (interaction P=0.018).

Summary Depth

Choose how much analysis to show on this article page.

Summary

This retrospective study compared microscopic decompression versus UBE-assisted ULBD in 180 patients with 1-2 level DLSS without instability, using IPTW adjustment and mFI-11 frailty stratification. UBE produced higher clinical success rates (92.2% vs 78.9%, P=0.012), less multifidus atrophy and fatty infiltration on MRI, and a statistically significant interaction favoring UBE in frail patients (P=0.018). Both techniques significantly improved ODI and VAS scores at 12 months.

Key Limitation

Twelve-month follow-up is insufficient to assess durability of the multifidus preservation advantage and whether it translates to reduced adjacent segment degeneration or revision rates.

Original Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical outcomes and paraspinal muscle preservation between microscopic decompression and unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) using unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) without instability, and to assess the influence of frailty.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Both microscopic decompression and UBE-assisted ULBD are commonly used for DLSS, but comparative data addressing frailty and muscle preservation are limited.

METHODS

A total of 180 patients with 1-2 level DLSS without instability were retrospectively analyzed and assigned to microscopic decompression (n=90) or UBE-assisted ULBD (n=90). Frailty was assessed using the modified Frailty Index-11. Outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, evaluated preoperatively and at 12 months. Clinical success was defined as meaningful improvement in ODI. Paraspinal muscle injury was assessed on MRI by multifidus muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used for adjustment.

RESULTS

Both techniques significantly improved ODI and VAS scores at 12 months (P<0.001). ODI improvement and clinical success were higher in the UBE group (92.2% vs. 78.9%; P=0.012). MRI demonstrated less multifidus atrophy and fatty infiltration after UBE. Frailty was negatively associated with functional improvement, with a significant interaction favoring UBE in frailer patients (P=0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques are safe and effective for DLSS without instability. However, UBE-assisted decompression provides superior functional outcomes and better paraspinal muscle preservation, particularly in frail patients.