ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2022
Comparison of the safety and efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a 1-year follow-up.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the Outcomes of Endoscopic Posterolateral Interbody Fusion and Lateral Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Minimally invasive endoscopy in spine surgery: where are we now?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
- 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
- Comparison of midterm outcomes between biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with lateral vertebral body screw fixation for single level spondylolisthesis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Mounting the learning curve in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression in an Asian population: experience of a single surgeon's first 105 consecutive cases with early functional outcomes.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Totally endoscopic trans‑superior articular process lumbar interbody fusion: A case series on the development and preliminary evaluation of an innovative minimally invasive lumbar spine surgical technique.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- A systematic review of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery with interbody fusion.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy and Complications Between Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Comparative efficacy and fusion outcomes of unilateral bi-portal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in treating single-segment degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with lumbar spinal stenosis: a two-year retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Complications in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in the Last 10 Years: A Narrative Review.Neurospine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the learning curve and complications in unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: cumulative sum analysis and risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Case Report: Bacterial meningitis due to cerebrospinal fluid leakage following unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery: a cautionary tale.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective.Neurospine · 2023Article
- [Comparison of effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis combined with intervertebral disc herniation].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2023Article
- Postoperative bone graft migration into the thecal sac and shifting down to the lower level after an endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a case report.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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the short-term outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BLIF) and uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF).
methodsSixty patients diagnosed with L4/5 spinal stenosis who underwent BLIF and ULIF were included (30 in each group). Clinical evaluation was performed preoperatively and postoperatively in the 1st week, 1st month, and 1st year. Factors such as the visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), operative time, surgical complications, and radiological outcomes (fusion rate, screw loosening, and cage subsidence) were compared between the two groups.
resultsAll patients showed improved mean VAS and ODI at all three postoperative follow-ups, and no statistically significant differences were detected between the BLIF and ULIF groups. The mean operative time in the BLIF group was shorter than that in the ULIF group. Nerve root injury occurred in two patients in the BLIF group, while leakage of cerebrospinal fluid occurred in one patient in the ULIF group. All adverse events were treated adequately prior to discharge. The fusion rates with definite and probable grades were significantly higher in the BLIF group than that in the ULIF group. One case of cage subsidence with no screw loosening occurred in each group.
conclusionBoth BLIF and ULIF are safe and effective surgical techniques. Compared with ULIF, BLIF has the advantages of shorter operative time and a higher fusion rate. Other merits of BLIF include a wider surgical field, greater maneuverability of instruments, visibility during cage implantation, and transverse orientation of the cage.
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.