SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2022
Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion enhanced the recovery of patients with the lumbar degenerative disease compared with the conventional posterior procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Description and assessment of deep ligamentum flavum-preserved modified minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via unilateral biportal endoscopic assistance: a one-year retrospective cohort study.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
- 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
- Long-term comparative study of Open-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, and UBE-TLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Advancements in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a narrative review.European journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Comparative analysis of single vs. double cage insertion in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of clinical outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with posterior percutaneous screw fixation in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Improved Clinical and Radiological Outcomes with Double-Cage Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparative CT-Based Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparison of short-term effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic and MED-assisted transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for mild single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Preserving Cervical Mobility: A Novel Robot-Assisted Approach for Atlas Fracture Fixation.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion and modified minimally invasive tubular lumbar fusion for lumbar disc herniation: a two-year retrospective study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques for lumbar disc herniation: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical application of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases: a multi-center study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- 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
- Comparison of the clinical outcomes of VBE-TLIF versus MIS-TLIF for single-level degenerative lumbar diseases.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 · 2024Article
- Clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive endoscopic technique is an important component of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol for neurosurgery. In recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) has been used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). This study aims to investigate whether ULIF could enhance the recovery of patients with LDD compared with the conventional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed for relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library database, China National Knowledge Internet, and Wanfang database. Surgical data, clinical outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and surgical complications were compared between patients with LDD who underwent ULIF and those who underwent conventional MI-TLIF or PLIF. Results: Notably, 12 studies, comprising 981 patients with LDD, were included. Of these patients, 449 underwent ULIF and 532 patients (355 MI-TLIF and 177 PLIF) were treated with conventional procedures. There was no significant difference in the fusion rate, cage subsidence rate, and surgical complications between the ULIF group and the MI-TLIF or PLIF group. Compared with MI-TLIF, the ULIF group presented a significantly reduced estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD, -106.00; 95% CI -140.99 to -71.10, Conclusion: Compared with conventional MI-TLIF and PLIF, ULIF was associated with reduced EBL, shorter LOS, and comparable fusion rate as well as complication management. Compared with MI-TLIF, a better short-term improvement in VAS-BP and ODI was achieved by ULIF; compared with open PLIF, additional enhanced short-term improvement in VAS-LP and long-term improvement in ODI were observed in ULIF. ULIF could enhance the recovery of patients with LDD compared with conventional posterior procedures. Systematic trial registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=230695, CRD42021230695.
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.