Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36867251›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

Comparing the efficacy and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopic fusion versus minimally invasive fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and mate-analysis.

Qian Wang, Shuai Chang, Jun-Feng Dong, Xu Fang, Yang Chen, Can Zhuo

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Qian WangDepartment of the Spinal Surgery, The First College of Clinical Medical Science (Yichang Central People's Hospital), Three Gorges University, Yichang, 443000, Hubei, China.
Shuai ChangDepartment of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, 100191, China.
Jun-Feng DongDepartment of Orthopedics, The First Dongguan Affiliated Hospital of Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan, 523710, GuangDong, People's Republic of China. doctor_d0346@163.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3174-7655
Xu FangDepartment of the Spinal Surgery, The First College of Clinical Medical Science (Yichang Central People's Hospital), Three Gorges University, Yichang, 443000, Hubei, China.
Yang ChenDepartment of the Spinal Surgery, The First College of Clinical Medical Science (Yichang Central People's Hospital), Three Gorges University, Yichang, 443000, Hubei, China.
Can ZhuoDepartment of the Spinal Surgery, The First College of Clinical Medical Science (Yichang Central People's Hospital), Three Gorges University, Yichang, 443000, Hubei, China.
Yichang Central People's Hospital · CNGuangdong Medical College · CNPeking University · CN

Funding

The National Natural Science Foundation of China (Youth Program) 31600779Yichang Medical and Health Research Project A18-301-30
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) has been gradually applied in clinical practice. UBE has two channels, with good visual field and operating space, and has achieved good results in the treatment of lumbar spine diseases. Some scholars combine UBE with vertebral body fusion to replace traditional open fusion surgery and minimally invasive fusion surgery. The efficacy of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) is still controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, BE-TLIF and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) are compared in the efficacy and complications of lumbar degenerative diseases.

methodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were used to search literatures related to BE-TLIF before January 2023, to identify relevant studies, and systematically review all literatures. Evaluation indicators mainly include operation time, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Macnab.

resultsA total of 9 studies were included in this study; a total of 637 patients were collected, and 710 vertebral bodies were treated. Nine studies showed that there was no significant difference in VAS score, ODI, fusion rate, and complication rate between BE-TLIF and MI-TLIF at the final follow-up after surgery.

conclusionThis study suggests that BE-TLIF is a safe and effective surgical approach. BE-TLIF surgery has similar good efficacy to MI-TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. And compared with MI-TLIF, it has the advantages of early postoperative relief of low-back pain, shorter hospital stay, and faster functional recovery. However, high-quality prospective studies are needed to validate this conclusion.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeSpinal FusionEndoscopyHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBE-TLIFMeta-analysisMI-TLIFSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36867251
OpenAlexW4323037392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.