ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Comparison of treatment outcomes and analysis of factors interfering with efficacy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis undergoing unilateral unichannel and bichannel endoscopic ULBD surgery.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression for two-level adjacent lumbar spinal stenosis through a single sliding approach: technical report and early follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the treatment outcomes of unilateral unichannel and bichannel endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and analyze factors interfering with efficacy.
methodsThis retrospective study included a total of 122 patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis who were treated at Bozhou District People's Hospital between June 2022 and June 2024. The patients were divided into two groups based on their surgical procedure: the unichannel endoscopic ULBD group (n = 61) and the bichannel endoscopic ULBD group (n = 61). Clinical outcomes, perioperative indicators, postoperative recovery metrics, foraminal area, cross-sectional area of the dural sac, complication rates, surgical satisfaction, and factors interfering with surgical efficacy were retrospectively analyzed.
resultsNo significant difference in the overall effectiveness rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). The bichannel group had shorter incision length, less blood loss, and a shorter surgery time compared to the unichannel group (P < 0.05). At postoperative days 3, 3 months, and 6 months, the VAS scores for back pain and leg pain, as well as the ODI scores in the bichannel group, were significantly lower than those in the unichannel group (P < 0.05), whereas the JOA scores were higher (P < 0.05). One month postoperatively, the cognitive, physical, role, and social function scores in the bichannel group were higher than those in the unichannel group (P < 0.05), and both the foraminal area and cross-sectional area of the dural sac were greater in the bichannel group (P < 0.05). The complication rate in the bichannel group was lower than that in the unichannel group (P < 0.05), and the surgical satisfaction rate was higher in the bichannel group (P < 0.05). Factors interfering with efficacy included age, duration of illness, intramedullary signal edema type, cystic type, preoperative annulus fibrosus rupture, and lumbar instability (P < 0.05).
conclusionBichannel endoscopic ULBD surgery yields superior outcomes compared to unichannel surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis patients. Age, disease duration, and certain preoperative conditions are significant factors influencing efficacy.
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.