ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy and Complications Between Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Long-term comparative study of Open-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, and UBE-TLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Advancements in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a narrative review.European journal of medical research · 2026Review
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
Objective: To effectuate a comprehensive juxtaposition of the clinical implications, incidence of complications, and successful fusion rates observed in the context of biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (BE-LIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). Methods: The present research initiative involved an exhaustive exploration of pertinent scholarly literature in renowned databases, which lasted until April 2023. The evaluative framework encompassed a diverse array of parameters, including but not limited to operation time, hospitalization, quantification of estimated blood loss, the assessment of outcomes via the application of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) to gauge pain intensity, and the utilization of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to measure functional impairment. Results: The current meta-analysis included ten studies with a total of 736 participants. In comparison of the BE-LIF and MI-TLIF techniques, no substantial differences were observed in the parameters studied, included VAS for leg pain (P > 0.05), as well as the assessment of complication rates (7.76% versus 7.97%; P = 0.71) and fusion rates (89.59% versus 88.60%; P = 0.90). However, the early postoperative VAS for back pain (P < 0.0001) and the early postoperative ODI score (P = 0.007) were significantly lower in the BE-LIF group than in the MI-TLIF group. Additionally, a significant difference in blood loss was observed (P < 0.0001), with less blood loss in the BE-LIF group compared to the MI-TLIF group. Furthermore, the complex surgical procedure of BE-LIF resulted in a longer duration of surgery (P = 0.02) but shorter hospitalization compared with MI-TLIF (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Within the context of the management of lumbar degenerative diseases, BE-LIF surgery exhibits clinical effectiveness and incidence of complications comparable to MI-TLIF. In contrast to MI-TLIF, BE-LIF offers distinctive merits, including reduced blood loss, abbreviated hospitalization durations, expedited relief from postoperative back pain, and an accelerated trajectory towards functional recuperation.
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.