Comparison of clinical outcomes and cost-utility between unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for single-level lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective matched controlled study.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and cost-utility of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) versus percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) for the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 99 patients who underwent either UBE (n = 33) or PEID (n = 66) between July 2022 and December 2023 at the Second Xiangya Hospital. Patients were matched 1:2 based on age, sex, and surgery level to ensure comparability. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) calculated for cost-utility analysis. Hospitalization costs were analyzed, and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICER) was determined.

Results: Both UBE and PEID groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in VAS, EQ-5D, and ODI scores (p < 0.05). The operative time, blood loss and nursing cost were significantly higher for UBE compared to PEID (p < 0.05). UBE has higher gained QALY and overall costs, but the differences are not statistically significant (p = 0.643 for QALY, p = 0.327 for costs). The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for UBE compared to PEID was calculated to be $354.5 per QALY gained, indicating that for each additional QALY gained through UBE, an additional cost of $354.5 is incurred compared to PEID.

Conclusion: In our single-center study conducted in China, both the UBE and PEID procedures have demonstrated comparable short-term efficacy in alleviating pain and improving functional ability in patients with single-level LDH. UBE procedure demonstrates greater cost-utility than the PEID procedure in cost-utility analysis, despite its longer operative time, higher nursing costs and greater blood loss.