ArticleNeurospine2025
Comparison of 3 Different Endoscopic Techniques for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Comprehensive Radiological and Clinical Study.
Article in Neurospine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF) and conventional open TLIF in degenerative lumbar spine disease: a radiological, clinical, and laboratory study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Correlation Between Postoperative Changes in Imaging Parameters and Clinical Outcomes After Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
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
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the clinical and comprehensive radiological outcomes of 3 types of endoscopic decompression surgery: unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression (UBELD), microendoscopic laminotomy (MEL), and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD).
methodsPatients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis without instability were included in this multicenter retrospective study. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for each extremity, VAS back pain, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores at preoperative and postoperative 1st, 6th, and 12th months were used as clinical outcome measures. In order to compare the radiological results of the patients, bilateral superior articular distance (SAD), bilateral lateral recess height (LR height), bilateral lateral recess angle (LR angle), and cross-sectional spinal canal area values were measured.
resultsEighty patients in the UBELD group, 73 patients in the MEL group, and 62 patients in the PELD group were included in the study. There was a statistically significant improvement in VAS scores and JOA scores in all groups compared to the preoperative period. At the 12th month postoperatively, the highest lateral decompression values on the approach side were determined as MEL (SAD: 4.1 mm, LR angle: 38.8°, LR height: 4.0 mm), followed by UBELD (SAD: 3.6 mm, LR angle: 36.2°, LR height: 3.3 mm) and PELD (SAD: 3.0 mm, LR angle: 21.7°, LR height: 2.3 mm), respectively. For the contralateral side, the highest lateral recess decompression values were listed as UBELD > MEL > PELD.
conclusionEffective decompression can be performed using all endoscopic techniques in lumbar spinal stenosis. However lateral recess decompression values were found to be better in UBELD and MEL techniques, compared to PELD.
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.