ArticleNeurospine2024
Comparative Outcomes of Biportal Endoscopic Decompression, Conventional Subtotal Laminectomy, and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Central Stenosis.
Article in Neurospine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy vs. unilateral portal endoscopy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of paraspinal muscle changes after biportal endoscopic and microscopic lumbar discectomy or decompression.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 · 2026Article
- O-Arm Navigation Enhances Facet Preservation Without Compromising Clinical Outcomes in UBE Decompression for Radiographically Stable Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Single-Center Comparative Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Use of Double Cages for Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Bilateral-Contralateral Endoscopic Decompression as a Fusion-Deferral Strategy in Upper Lumbar Stenosis: A Structural Rationale and Conditional Framework-A Technical Note with Cases Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Totally endoscopic trans‑superior articular process lumbar interbody fusion: A case series on the development and preliminary evaluation of an innovative minimally invasive lumbar spine surgical technique.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion and modified minimally invasive tubular lumbar fusion for lumbar disc herniation: a two-year retrospective study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSpinal stenosis is a prevalent condition; however, the optimal surgical treatment for central lumbar stenosis remains controversial. This study compared the clinical outcomes and radiological parameters of 3 surgical.
methodsunilateral laminectomy bilateral decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (ULBD-UBE), conventional subtotal laminectomy (STL), and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).
methodsThis retrospective study included 86 patients, divided into ULBD-UBE (n=34), STL (n=24), and MIS-TLIF (n=28) groups. We evaluated demographics and perioperative factors and assessed clinical outcomes using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC). Radiological parameters assessed included lumbar lordosis, L4S1 Cobb angle (L4S1), T12S1 Cobb angle (T12S1), increased cross-sectional dural area (CSA), dynamic angulation (DA), dynamic slip (DS), and development of postoperative instability.
resultsThe ULBD-UBE group showed a significantly shorter hospital stay duration and operation time and reduced blood loss than the other groups (p<0.001). ULBD-UBE group showed a trend towards greater VAS and ODI improvement at 1 month and postoperative NIC symptom relief. Radiologically, MIS-TLIF group exhibited lower postoperative DA and DS (p<0.001), indicating higher postoperative stability. Postoperative instability was lower in the ULBD-UBE group (2.9%) than in the STL group (16.7%) and similar to the MIS-TLIF group (0.0%) (p=0.028). The CSA was highest in the MIS-TLIF group (295.5%) compared to that in the other groups (ULBD-UBE, 216.3%; STL, 245.2%) (p<0.001).
conclusionCompared to other procedures, ULBD-UBE is a safe, effective, and viable surgical procedure for treating lumbar central stenosis.
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.