ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
A meta-analysis of clinical effects of microscopic unilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression (ULBD) versus biportal endoscopic ULBD for lumbar canal stenosis.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression for single-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-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 · 2024Pooled it
- 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
- Establishment of a rabbit model for microscopically assisted posterior lumbar fenestration.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Comparison of Biportal Endoscopic Technique and Conventional Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) for Multi-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Elderly People.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Early Clinical and Radiologic Evaluation of Endoscopic Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of treatment outcomes and analysis of factors interfering with efficacy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis undergoing unilateral unichannel and bichannel endoscopic ULBD surgery.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Arthroscopic-assisted uni-portal spinal surgery combined with modified unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression for the treatment of lumber epidural lipomatosis: Case report and new therapeutic method.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal and percutaneous endoscopic techniques in unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a meta-analysis unveiling the learning curve and clinical benefits.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osbjective: Several studies have shown that both microscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (ULBD) and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) ULBD are effective for treating lumbar canal stenosis (LCS). However, there are different viewpoints as to which surgical technique is superior. Therefore, this meta-analysis investigated the clinical efficacy and side effects of microscopic ULBD and UBE ULBD for treating LCS. Methods: To identify relevant studies describing the clinical outcomes and complication rates of microscopic ULBD and UBE ULBD for LCS, several databases were systematically searched in the Internet. The visual analog scale score for back and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index were used to assess clinical outcomes. Furthermore, data about perioperative outcomes and complications were documented. Results: In total, six studies with 450 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The UBE ULBD was found to be superior to microscopic ULBD in terms of efficacy against early postoperative back and leg pain. However, there was no significant difference between the two procedures in terms of final clinical outcomes and complications. In addition, compared with microscopic ULBD, UBE ULBD was associated with a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay and C-reactive protein levels 2 days after surgery. Conclusion: UBE ULBD and microscopic ULBD for the treatment of LCS were similar in terms of final clinical outcomes and complications. However, UBE ULBD has several advantages over microscopic ULBE, including a shorter hospital stay and faster alleviation of postoperative back and leg pain.
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.