Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34853540›Full record

ArticleOrthopedic research and reviews2021

Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Note and an Outcome Comparison with the Conventional Minimally Invasive Fusion.

Asrafi Rizki Gatam, Luthfi Gatam, Harmantya Mahadhipta, Ajiantoro Ajiantoro, Omar Luthfi, Dina Aprilya

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopedic research and reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Comparing the efficacy and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopic fusion versus minimally invasive fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and mate-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
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Asrafi Rizki GatamOrthopaedic Spine Division, Fatmawati General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Luthfi GatamOrthopaedic Spine Division, Fatmawati General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Harmantya MahadhiptaOrthopaedic Spine Division, Tangerang General Hospital, Banten, Indonesia.
Ajiantoro AjiantoroOrthopaedic Spine Division, Premier Bintaro Hospital, Banten, Indonesia.
Omar LuthfiOrthopedic Spine Division, Adhyaksa General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Dina AprilyaOrthopedic and Traumatology Department, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0003-3226-7992
Fatmawati Hospital · IDUniversitas Muhammadiyah Tangerang · IDUniversity of Indonesia · ID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the past few decades, the minimally invasive technique for spine surgery has developed extensively from the scope of decompression until fusion surgeries to reduce damages to the normal anatomical structure. Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) is one of the fusion options which is readily available without a sophisticated minimal invasive instrument. Our aim is to introduce ULIF experience in our center and comparing the result with conventional minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).

methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of 145 lumbar spondylolisthesis cases that underwent fusion surgery with either ULIF or the conventional MIS-TLIF. All of the patients were observed within a 12-month follow-up period to evaluate the back pain and leg pain Visual Analogue Score (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and fusion rate.

resultsThe leg pain VAS was similarly improved in both groups. ULIF has a significant back pain improvement on direct post operation and at the 3-months follow-up (

conclusionFull endoscopic fusion surgery with ULIF offers a comparable long-term outcome and a significantly better back pain VAS reduction in short-term follow up compared to the conventional MIS-TLIF. ULIF, with further improvement, can be the next gold standard in managing degenerative lumbar spine conditions.

Indexed as

degenerative spondylolisthesisfull endoscopic spine surgerylumbar interbody fusionlumbar spineminimally invasive spine surgeryMISSunilateral biportal endoscopy

Identifiers

PMID34853540
PMCPMC8628045
OpenAlexW3216832779

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.