SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of different treatments for lumbar disc herniation: a network meta-analysis and systematic review.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of efficacy and safety between unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus uniportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Two-Level Fusion: Hemodynamic Profiles and Early Clinical Outcomes Compared with Tubular MIS and Open Approaches.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Total and Hidden Blood Loss in Biportal Endoscopic Versus Tubular-Based Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF) and conventional open TLIF in degenerative lumbar spine disease: a radiological, clinical, and laboratory study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
- Comparative study of two minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusions for single-segment lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study.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
- Comparative analysis of single vs. double cage insertion in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Therapeutic Approaches for Enhancing Spinal Fusion in Low Back Pain: A Review With a Focus on the Elderly.JOR spine · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of the efficacy and functional recovery of unilateral biportal endoscopy-assisted lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of clinical effects of endoscopic powered osteotome and endoscopic powered drill for UBE-TLIF surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A Novel Unilateral Bi/Multi-Portal Endoscopic Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Utilizing Uniaxial Spinal Endoscope Instead of Arthroscope: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Results.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the value of enhanced recovery after surgery in postoperative recovery following unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion.American journal of translational 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
- Article
- Effect of Cage Material and Size on Fusion Rate and Subsidence Following Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Neurospine · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis meta-analysis compares the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) to conventional interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).
methodsAn extensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Research related to UBE-TLIF published up to November 2022 was reviewed. The relevant articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as an evaluation of the quality of the data extraction literature. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.
resultsThis meta-analysis included six high-quality case-control trials (CCTs) involving 621 subjects. The clinical outcomes assessment showed no statistical differences in complication rates, fusion rates, leg pain VAS scores, or ODI scores. After UBE-TLIF, low back pain VAS scores were significantly improved with less intraoperative blood loss and a shorter hospital stay. A longer time was required for UBE-TLIF, however.
conclusionDespite the lack of sufficient high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this study, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that UBE-TLIF is more effective than open surgery in terms of length of stay, blood loss reduction during surgery, and improved low back pain after surgery. Nevertheless, the evidence will be supplemented in the future by more and better quality multicenter randomized controlled trials.
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.