Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39574056›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024

Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis.

Yanxing He, Qianyue Cheng, Jiang She

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors.

Yanxing He *Department of Orthopaedics, Ninth Hospital of Xi'an, 151 East Section of South Second Ring Road, Xi'an, 710054, China.
Qianyue Cheng *Department of Orthopaedics, Ninth Hospital of Xi'an, 151 East Section of South Second Ring Road, Xi'an, 710054, China.
Jiang SheDepartment of Orthopaedics, Ninth Hospital of Xi'an, 151 East Section of South Second Ring Road, Xi'an, 710054, China. shejiang521@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive spine surgery has seen rapid development in recent years. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) versus minimally invasive surgery transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsIn collaboration with various search terms, a comprehensive examination of the scientific literature was carried out using PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and other databases. A total of 9 studies were included retrospective cohort studies.

resultsWe observed statistically significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, total hospital stay, postoperative hospital stays, and 1-month postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores between the ULIF and MIS-TLIF groups, with the ULIF group being more dominant. MIS-TLIF group was statistically more advantageous in terms of operative time. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, 3-month postoperative and final ODI scores, excellent and good rate, complications, disc heights, and lumbar lordosis angle between the two groups.

conclusionsTreatment of single-segment LDD with ULIF and MIS-TLIF is both safe and effective. ULIF has the advantage of less intraoperative blood loss, shorter total hospital stay, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower ODI scores at 1 month postoperatively compared to MIS-TLIF. There were no significant differences between ULIF and MIS-TLIF in the treatment of LDD in terms of postoperative VAS scores, 3-month postoperative and final ODI scores, satisfaction rates, fusion rates, complications, disc heights, and lumbar lordosis angle. MIS-TLIF has a shorter procedure time than ULIF.

Indexed as

EndoscopyIntervertebral Disc DegenerationLumbar VertebraeMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresSpinal FusionHumansLength of StayOperative TimeTreatment OutcomeLumbar degenerative diseaseMeta-analysisMinimally invasive surgery transforaminal interbody fusionUnilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion

Identifiers

PMID39574056
PMCPMC11580209

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.