Introduction: This study aimed to compare early efficacy of UBED and PEID in the treatment of L5/S1 IDH.
Material and methods: Forty-two patients who underwent surgical treatment for L5/S1 IDH were divided into two groups: UBED and PEID. Operation time, complications, VAS/ODI score were recorded. MacNab evaluation was completed one and three months postoperatively.
Results: All patients were successfully operated without infection, nerve injury, or huge hematoma in the spinal canal. There were no significant differences in operation time and hospitalization days between the two groups (p > 0.05). All patients were followed up after the operation and low back/leg pain was significantly reduced. VAS for low back pain, VAS for leg pain, ODI scores in both groups one and three months after the operation were significantly lower than pre-operation (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between one and three months after the operation in both groups (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in VAS for low back pain, leg pain, ODI score, and overall efficacy between the two groups one and three months post-operation (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: UBED and PEID have very good early efficacy in treating L5/S1 IDH. Because UBED has a wider vision field and more flexible operation, it can be used as a useful complement to PEID.
Keywords: Lumbar disc herniation; VAS score; early efficacy; intervertebral disc herniation; pEID; uBED.