ArticleAsian spine journal2025
Minimally invasive biportal endoscopic spinal surgery for central canal stenosis in low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: clinical outcomes and implications: a retrospective observational study.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Response to the letter to the editor: Inconsistencies in obesity criteria: implications for systematic reviews on endoscopic spine surgery.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Stable low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis does not adversely affect clinical outcome of full-endoscopic decompression in patients with spinal stenosis.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- Editorial comment for the special issue on endoscopic spine surgery.Asian spine journal · 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
Abstract
STUDY
designA retrospective observational study. PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) using biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) in patients with low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) and central canal stenosis. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: DLS with central canal stenosis frequently requires surgical intervention to alleviate symptoms. Although traditional fusion surgeries are effective, they are associated with risks such as adjacent segment disease and increased postoperative morbidity. BESS presents a minimally invasive alternative that aims to achieve adequate decompression while preserving segmental stability.
methodsA total of 68 patients with symptomatic, low-grade DLS and moderate-to-severe central canal stenosis underwent ULBD using BESS. Patients were followed for at least 2 years. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the modified Macnab criteria for patient satisfaction. Radiological outcomes were assessed on the basis of sagittal translation from dynamic flexion-extension radiographs.
resultsThe mean VAS score for back pain decreased from 3.8±2.4 preoperatively to 1.9±2.0 at the final follow-up, and the leg pain scores decreased from 6.4±1.8 to 2.3±2.0 (both p<0.05). The ODI score improved significantly from 48.9±15.7 preoperatively to 23.1±17.5 at the final follow-up (p<0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria, 27.9%, 42.6%, 22.1%, and 7.4% of the patients reported excellent, good, fair, and poor outcomes. Radiological assessments indicated no significant changes in sagittal translation, supporting the preservation of spinal stability.
conclusionsBESS with ULBD represents a safe and effective minimally invasive approach for treating low-grade DLS with central canal stenosis. It offers substantial symptom relief and functional improvement without jeopardizing spinal stability, making it a viable alternative to conventional fusion surgery.
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.