ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2021
Percutaneous Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy and Bilateral Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Effects of Fluid Gelatin for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Undergoing Lumbar Endoscopic Bilateral Decompression: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Trial
- Biomechanical effects of endoscopic ULBD in a reduced‑stiffness lumbar spine model: focus on endplate stress and hypothesis‑generating risk indicators (a finite element analysis).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Percutaneous laparoscopic harvest and trans-vaginal implantation of autologous rectus fascia in the treatment of severe anterior vaginal prolapse.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical effect of percutaneous endoscopic visual trephine decompression combined with pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar vertebral burst fracture with secondary spinal canal stenosis.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Article
- Endoscopic-Assisted Peri-Root Anesthesia Provides Superior Intraoperative Analgesia Over Epidural Anesthesia in L5-S1 Interlaminar Endoscopic Discectomy.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Unilateral Endo-LIF in treating central lumbar spinal stenosis.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluation of three methods of coaxial endoscopic lumbar fusion for treating lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective cohort study.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Indirect Decompression Effect After Extreme Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Three-Dimensional Volumetric Measurements-A Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of Endoscopic Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression (Endo-ULBD) and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF) in Managing Multi-Segmental Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Technique and Early Outcomes.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Percutaneous endoscopic unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression improves gait quality and stance balance in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Bilateral synchronous UBE for unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression as a potentially effective minimally Invasive approach for two-level lumbar spinal stenosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Clinical analysis of percutaneous endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression for single segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- Article
- Minimally Invasive Endoscopic Spine Surgery as a Viable Option for Geriatric Patients with High Anesthetic Risk.Cureus · 2024Article
- Efficacy of PE-PLIF with a novel ULBD approach for lumbar degeneration diseases: a large-channel endoscopic retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Early result of percutaneous full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective study.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- Efficacy of endoscopic decompression surgery for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.Interventional pain medicine · 2024Article
- The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Ten-step minimally invasive slalom unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (sULBD) with navigation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
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
Abstract
To introduce a new surgery, percutaneous endoscopic unilateral laminotomy and bilateral decompression (Endo-ULBD) using visual trepan, and investigate its efficacy and safety in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. In our retrospective study, a total of 69 patients were enrolled between March 2018 and September 2018; 31 patients were treated with Endo-ULBD and 38 patients were treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery (PLIF). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospitalization duration were compared between the two groups. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the degree of pain. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) were used to evaluate lumbar function and quality of life, respectively. Lumbar X-ray, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed postoperatively at different time points. MacNab's outcome assessment and perioperative complications were also documented. The surgeon completed all surgeries successfully, and all 69 patients were followed up. The operative time of the Endo-ULBD group was 60.68 ± 0.47 min, while that of the PLIF group was 120.23 ± 10.24 min. The operative time of the Endo-ULBD group was shorter than that of the PLIF group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The volume of intraoperative blood loss was 47.25 ± 0.43 mL in the Endo-ULBD group and 256.90 ± 20.83 mL in the PILF group (P < 0.001). The length of hospital stay in the Endo-ULBD group was 5.12 ± 1.60 days and that in the PILF group was 10.54 ± 1.82 days (P < 0.001). The VAS scores at postoperative 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, final follow-up (Endo-ULBD: 6.58 ± 0.65, 4.55 ± 0.54, 2.78 ± 0.24, 1.31 ± 0.78; PLIF: 7.19 ± 1.14, 4.80 ± 0.13, 2.71 ± 0.83, 1.29 ± 0.56) were significantly improved compared with those before surgery (Endo-ULBD: 8.63 ± 0.37; PLIF: 8.31 ± 1.34). The ODI and EQ-5D scores of lumbar function and quality of life at each time point after surgery (Endo-ULBD ODI: 30.29% ± 0.47%, 23.35% ± 0.95%, 19.45% ± 0.81%, 10.84% ± 0.36%; EQ-5D: 0.38 ± 0.15, 0.45 ± 0.17, 0.63 ± 0.14, 0.71 ± 0.20; PLIF ODI: 33.56% ± 1.58%, 25.69% ± 2.69%, 20.01% ± 1.49%, 10.72% ± 0.29%; EQ-5D: 0.33 ± 0.03, 0.39 ± 0.05, 0.62 ± 0.07, 0.72 ± 0.10) were significantly improved compared with those before surgery (Endo-ULBD: 44.56 ± 1.32, 0.33 ± 0.07; PLIF: 43.79 ± 1.91, 0.31 ± 0.09, respectively), with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference between the two groups at the last follow-up (P > 0.05). At the last follow-up, the excellent and good efficacy rate was 90.3% (28/31) in the Endo-ULBD group and 89.4% (34/38) in the PILF group (χ
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.