ArticleNeurosurgical review2019
Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): 1-year follow-up.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 75 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
75 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Comparing the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Pooled it
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Pooled it
- 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 · 2023Pooled it
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion enhanced the recovery of patients with the lumbar degenerative disease compared with the conventional posterior procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Application of RhBMP-2 in Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.BMC surgery · 2024Trial
- Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: Radiographic and clinical outcomes in grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis.Medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of ipsilateral versus contralateral inclinatory approaches in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy and strategies to reduce recurrence.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 · 2026Article
- Comparison between large interbody cage versus two smaller interbody cages in unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal interbody fusion.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 · 2026Article
- Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF) and conventional open TLIF in degenerative lumbar spine disease: a radiological, clinical, and laboratory study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Navigation-assisted vs robot -assisted unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective comparative study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2026Article
- Strategic Use of the 30-Degree Endoscope in Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Spondylolisthesis With Severe Disc Height Loss: A Technique Note and Case Series.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Management of lumbar spinal epidural abscess using biportal endoscopic approach: a case series.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- No surgical site infections observed after lumbar unilateral biportal endoscopy: a multicenter retrospective series of 1566 patients.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of single vs. double cage insertion in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Dural tear with severe irrigation-related complications during unilateral biportal endoscopy under general anesthesia: a case series and literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Resection of Thoracic Hemivertebra in a Child: A Case Report Highlighting Technical Feasibility and the Critical Importance of Stabilization.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Learning curve for biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and 90-day postoperative complications during the learning phase: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.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 · 2025Article
15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study retrospectively compared clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) to those of conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Seventy-one ULIF (age, 68 ± 8 years) and 70 PLIF (66 ± 9 years) patients for one lumbosacral segment followed more than 1 year were selected. Parameters for surgical techniques (operation time, whether transfused), clinical results [visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI)], surgical complications (dural tear, nerve root injury, infection), and radiological results (cage subsidence, screw loosening, fusion) between the two groups were compared. The PLIF group demonstrated a significantly shorter operation time and more transfusions done than the ULIF group. The VAS for leg pain in both groups and for back pain in the ULIF group significantly improved at 1 week, while the VAS for back pain in the PLIF group significantly improved at 1 year. ODI scores improved at 1 year in both groups. Complication rates were not significantly different between groups. Fusion rates with definite and probable grades were not significantly different between groups. However, the ULIF group had significantly (P = 0.013) fewer cases of definite fusion and more cases of probable fusion [43 (74.1%) and 15 (25.9%) cases, respectively] than the PLIF group [58 (92.1%) and 5 (7.9%) cases, respectively]. ULIF is less invasive while just as effective as conventional PLIF in improving clinical outcomes and obtaining fusion. However, ULIF has a longer operation time than PLIF and requires further development to improve the fusion grade.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31144195What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.