Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39237948›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024

Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal and percutaneous endoscopic techniques in unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Zhongxin Tang, Jun Tan, Mingkui Shen, Hejun Yang

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Addressing limitations of previous meta-analyses of uniportal versus biportal endoscopic lumbar surgery: an umbrella review and de-duplicated, pathology-stratified 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 · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. [Unilateral biportal endoscopy-assisted decompression strategy for lateral lumbar spinal stenosis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Zhongxin TangDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Third People's Hospital of Henan Province, Zhengzhou, Henan, 450006, P. R. China.
Jun TanDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Third People's Hospital of Henan Province, Zhengzhou, Henan, 450006, P. R. China.
Mingkui ShenDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Third People's Hospital of Henan Province, Zhengzhou, Henan, 450006, P. R. China.
Hejun YangDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Third People's Hospital of Henan Province, Zhengzhou, Henan, 450006, P. R. China. hejunyang02@163.com.

Funding

Henan Province medical science and technology research plan joint construction project LHGJ20230670The National Natural Science Foundation of China Yu Wei Medical Letter [2023] No.30
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) has yielded positive results in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Unilateral biportal ULBD (UB-ULBD) and percutaneous endoscopic ULBD (PE-ULBD) are gaining popularity because of the progress that has been made in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the radiographic and clinical results of UB-ULBD and PE-ULBD.

methodsThis study retrospectively enrolled patients who underwent ULBD surgery for LSS. The patients were categorized into two groups on the basis of the surgical method: the UB-ULBD group and the PE-ULBD group. Data on the general demographic data, surgical details, clinical efficacy, radiography and complications were compared between the two groups were compared. The minimum follow-up duration was 12 months.

resultsA total of 113 LSS patients who had undergone ULBD at our institution were included, of whom 61 patients underwent UB-ULBD surgery and 52 underwent PE-ULBD surgery. The UB-ULBD group had a significantly shorter operation time (P < 0.05). The facet was significantly better preserved in the UB-ULBD group than in the PE-ULBD group, and the angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection in the UE-ULBD group was significantly smaller (P < 0.05). The ODI score, VAS score and modified Macnab criteria improved postoperatively in both groups. The UB-ULBD group had a 95.08% rate of excellent or good patient outcomes, whereas the PE-ULBD group had a 92.30% rate.

conclusionBoth UB-ULBD and PE-ULBD can provide favourable clinical outcomes when used to treat LSS. UB-ULBD is beneficial because of its shorter operation time, smaller angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection and better facet preservation, making it a viable and safe option for treating LSS while ensuring spinal stability.

Indexed as

Decompression, SurgicalEndoscopyLaminectomyLumbar VertebraeSpinal StenosisAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeLumbar spinal stenosisPercutaneous endoscopicUnilateral biportal endoscopyUnilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression

Identifiers

PMID39237948
PMCPMC11375995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.