ArticleGlobal spine journal2020
Comparative Study Between Uniportal Full-Endoscopic Interlaminar and Tubular Approach in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Pilot Study.
Article in Global spine journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07026305 (Non-inferiority of Osseous Decompression of the Lumbar Canal Until Normalization of Epidural Pressure Compared to Conventional Open Laminectomy in Patients With Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Non-inferiority of Osseous Decompression of the Lumbar Canal Until Normalization of Epidural Pressure Compared to Conventional Open Laminectomy in Patients With Symptomatic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surgical interventions for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Tubular endoscopic spine surgery (TESS) for lumbar laminotomy: a technical feasibility study of a hybrid approach.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
- Complications in Thoracic Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (2013-2024): A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression compared with tubular or uniportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Remodeling of Epidural Fluid Hematoma after Uniportal Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy with Bilateral Decompression: Comparative Clinical and Radiological Outcomes with a Minimum Follow-up of 2 Years.Asian spine journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Remodeling Pattern of Spinal Canal after Full Endoscopic Uniportal Lumbar Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression: One Year Repetitive MRI and Clinical Follow-Up Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A comparative study on the clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and conventional open surgery in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
- Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy for multi-segmental lumbar disc herniation.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designMulticenter, prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study.
objectivesTo compare tubular and endoscopic interlaminar approach.
methodsPatients with lumbar spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication of were randomized to tubular or endoscopic technique. Enrollment period was 12 months. Clinical follow up at 1, 3, 6 months after surgery with visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score. Radiologic evaluation with magnetic resonance pre- and postsurgery.
resultsTwenty patients were enrolled: 10 in tubular approach (12 levels) and 10 in endoscopic approach (11 levels). The percentage of enlargement of the spinal canal was higher in endoscopic approach (202%) compared with tubular approach (189%) but was not statistically significant (
conclusionsIn the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, endoscopic technique allows similar decompression of the spinal canal and the dural sac, lower intrasurgical bleeding, similar symptoms improvement, and lower disability at 6 months of follow-up, as compared with the tubular technique.
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.