Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31045817›Full record

Trial reportMedicine2019

Is biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery satisfactory for lumbar spinal stenosis patients?: A prospective randomized comparative study.

Taewook Kang, Si Young Park, Chun Hyung Kang, Soon Hyuck Lee, Jong Hoon Park, Seung Woo Suh

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Learning curve insights in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) spinal procedures: proficiency cutoffs and the impact on efficiency and complications.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Clinical outcomes and complications after biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 3673 cases.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Clinical outcomes of uniportal compared with biportal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Taewook KangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Si Young Park
Chun Hyung Kang
Soon Hyuck Lee
Jong Hoon Park
Seung Woo Suh
Korea University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLumbar decompressive surgery is a standard surgical technique for lumbar spinal stenosis. Many new surgical techniques have been introduced, ranging from open surgery to minimally invasive procedures. Minimally invasive surgical techniques are preferred because patients experience less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays. However, the success rate of minimally invasive techniques have been controversial. The object of this study was to assess the feasibility of spinal decompression using biportal technique/endoscopic surgery compared with microscopic surgery.

methodsSeventy lumbar spinal stenosis patients undergoing laminectomy were included in this study. A number table was used to randomize the patients into two groups: a biportal technique/endoscopic surgery group (BG-36) and a microscopic surgery group (OG-34). One surgeon performed either biportal technique/endoscopic decompression or microscopic decompression using a tubular retractor, depending on the group to which the patient was randomized. Perioperative data and clinical outcomes at postoperative 6 months were collected and analyzed.

resultsThe demographic data and level of surgery were comparable between the two groups. A shorter operation time (36 ± 11 vs 54 ± 9 min), less hemovac drain output (25.5 ± 15.8 vs 53.2 ± 32.1 ml), less opioid usage (2.3 ± 0.6 vs 6.5 ± 2.5 T) and shorter hospital stay (1.2 ± 0.3 vs 3.5 ± 0.8 days) were shown in BG. The BG experienced no significant differences in clinical outcomes compared with OG. Favorable clinical outcomes were shown at 6 months after surgery in both groups.

conclusionLumbar decompressive surgery using biportal technique/endoscopy showed favorable clinical outcomes, less pain and a shorter hospital stay compared to microscopic surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Indexed as

AgedEndoscopyFemaleHumansLaminectomyLumbar VertebraeMaleMicrosurgeryMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative PainProspective StudiesSpinal StenosisTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID31045817
PMCPMC6504265
OpenAlexW2943084435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.