SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
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.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early complication rates of uniportal Full-Endoscopic lumbar discectomy in 539 patients: a retrospective multicentre 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 · 2026Observational
- Strategic Use of the 30-Degree Endoscope in Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Spondylolisthesis With Severe Disc Height Loss: A Technique Note and Case Series.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Innovative method for efficient placement of a working cannula in uniportal transarticular full-endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: transarticular trephonic plasty (TTP).BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Clinical application of different administration methods of tranexamic acid in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Spine endoscopy in transition: the case for mastery of both uniportal and biportal techniques.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Prolonged irrigation time in endoscopic aqueous medium impairs MSC/β-TCP adhesion and osteogenic potential.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Effectiveness of biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using the multi-layer bone grafting technique: a retrospective study from Vietnam.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Clinical efficacy analysis of one-hole split endoscopy surgery versus unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Optimized Versus Conventional Perioperative Care in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis meta-analysis was performed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) versus uniportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.
methodsWe electronically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Wanfang Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure to identify controlled clinical studies on the efficacy and safety of UBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases from database establishment to December 2023. Two researchers screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies. They also recorded the authors, sample size, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital length of stay, complication rate, fusion rate, visual analogue scale scores, and Oswestry disability index in each study. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software provided by the Cochrane Library.
resultsFive studies involving 314 patients met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. The UBE-TLIF group comprised 154 patients, and the Endo-TLIF group comprised 160 patients. UBE-TLIF was superior to Endo-TLIF in terms of the operative time and fusion rate. There were no significant differences in the intraoperative blood loss, hospital length of stay, complication rate, visual analogue scale scores, or Oswestry disability index between the two groups.
conclusionBoth UBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF can achieve satisfactory clinical results with respect to improving low back and leg pain in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. However, UBE-TLIF has the advantages of a shorter operative time and higher fusion rate.
trial registrationThis study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD42023495076).
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.