Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39845212›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Surgical Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Versus Full Endoscopy for Lumbar Canal Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis.

Tarsem Lal Motten

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Tarsem Lal MottenOrthopedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Jammu, Jammu, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lumbar canal stenosis (LCS) is a common cause of chronic lower back pain in the elderly. Traditionally, open decompression surgery has a prolonged recovery, higher blood loss, and more complications. As a result, there remains no clear consensus on which of these minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) techniques, including unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and full endoscopy (FE), is the optimal technique for LCS treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis were accomplished to compare the surgical results of UBE versus FE for lumbar canal stenosis in regard to surgical success, postoperative pain control, operative times, complication rates, and functional outcomes. Studies from 2024 were searched comprehensively in PubMed, Scopus, and other databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and experimental studies comparing UBE with FE were included. Surgical success rates, pain scores (visual analog scale (VAS)), recovery time, and complications were the key outcomes analyzed. Five studies (sample size: 32-163) were included. High surgical success and no significant difference in pain relief were demonstrated by both UBE and FE. UBE was associated with significantly quicker recovery times (odds ratio (OR): 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35-0.83, P = 0.01). The complication rates were lower with UBE compared with FE. Both techniques improved functional outcomes, but UBE had a slight advantage in recovery time. Both UBE and FE present effective treatments for LCS, and UBE is superior concerning recovery time. The choice of technique should be based on the patient's characteristics, and surgical goals should be tailored to each individual patient.

Indexed as

full endoscopylumbar canal stenosisminimally invasive spine surgerypostoperative pain reliefunilateral biportal endoscopy

Identifiers

PMID39845212
PMCPMC11751104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.