SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2020
Full-endoscopic (bi-portal or uni-portal) versus microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Letter to the editor regarding "Full‑endoscopic (bi‑portal or uni‑portal) versus microscopic lumbar decompression laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: systematic review and meta‑analysis".European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Pooled it
- Complications of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-analysis of Single-arm Studies.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Microendoscopic Discectomy for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluating the impact of body-mass index on short- and medium-term outcomes after lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery: a single‑surgeon, multi‑hospital 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 · 2026Article
- Interlaminar endoscopic contralateral decompression: redefining technique through standardized maneuvers and nomenclature.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- A preoperative nomogram for predicting 2-year postoperative recurrence after percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic decompression in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
- Complication assessment in full-endoscopic uniportal lumbar spine surgery: A prospective analysis from 304 patients.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Reporting bias is prevalent in systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to endoscopicJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Lumbar ligamentum flavum hematoma at L3-4 treated with full-endoscopic laminectomy: a case report.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Full-Endoscopic Spinal Canal Decompression After Direct Midline Splitting of the Spinous Process: A Technical Note.Cureus · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Interlaminar Standalone Decompression for Lumbar Lateral Recess Stenosis With Subligamentous Disc Herniation: A Disc-Preserving Alternative to Discectomy.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Endoscopic surgery for multilevel spinal stenosis: a comprehensive meta-analysis and subgroup analysis of uniportal and biportal approaches.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Surgical Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Versus Full Endoscopy for Lumbar Canal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2024Review
- Comparison between microendoscopic laminectomy and open posterior decompression surgery for two-level lumbar spinal stenosis: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Five-step unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery for central lumbar canal stenosis: "Z" technique nuance.Neurosurgical focus: Video · 2024Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic technique combined with percutaneous transpedicular screw fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures with neurological symptoms: technical note and preliminary report.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Comparison of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Decompression and Microscopic Decompression Effectiveness in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Asian spine journal · 2023Article
- The Use of Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel (UBS) in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery (UBESS): Technical Notes and Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLumbar stenosis causes pain in the lower lumbar spine and lower extremities and reduces the patient's quality of life and walking ability. Thus, these conditions are common surgical indications for spinal stenosis. Previous reports have shown satisfactory clinical outcomes of the full-endoscopic (FE) and MI technique decompressive laminectomy for lumbar stenosis. However, they still remain controversial.
objectiveWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the postoperative outcomes between FE (bi-portal or uni-portal) and MI technique decompressive laminectomy for lumbar stenosis.
methodWe searched all comparative studies that compared postoperative outcomes (operative time, VAS for back and leg pain, ODI in 3 months and last follow-up) of full-endoscopic (bi-portal or uni-portal) and microscopic technique decompressive laminectomy for lumbar stenosis from the PubMed and Scopus databases up to October 16, 2019.
resultsNine of 1107 studies (five comparative studies and four RCT) (N = 994 patients) were eligible; all studies were included in pooling of FE and MI decompression. Five and three studies were included in pooling of bi-portal endoscopic, uni-portal endoscopic and MI decompression. All three techniques were compared in one study. Eight, nine, seven, eight, five, seven, eight and nine studies were included in pooling of VAS for back, leg, ODI in 3 months and last follow-up and operative time, respectively. The UMD of VAS for back, leg, ODI in 3 months and last follow-up of FE group was - 0.63 (95% CI - 1.15, - 0.12), - 0.15 (- 0.42, 0.11), - 2.06 (- 3.76, - 0.39), - 0.07 (- 0.22, 0.08), - 0.16 (- 0.29, - 0.03), - 0.20 (- 1.20, 0.81) scores and - 3.00 (- 12.25, 6.25) minutes when compared to MI in lumbar stenosis. In terms of complication, FE was lower risk of 0.62 (0.40, 0.96) times when compared to MI. After subgroup analysis, BESS had significant lower back and leg pain within 3 months when compared to MI group, while uni-portal FE had significant lower leg pain in the last follow-up and complication when compared to MI group. There had no difference in ODI and operative time between two groups.
conclusionFE had statistically significant lower back pain, lower leg pain and lower risk of having complications when compared to MI decompression in lumbar stenosis, while there is no difference in ODI and operative time between both groups. Comparing to MI, BESS had better early postoperative back pain while uni-portal FE had better leg pain and risk of having complications. Larger, prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings as the current literature is still insufficient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.