Trial reportMedicine2025
Unilateral biportal endoscopic versus microscopic discectomy in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: A prospective cohort study.
Trial report in Medicine, 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.
- Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy and micro-endoscopic discectomy in the treatment of elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression compared with tubular or uniportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) and microendoscopic discectomy (MED) are well-established minimally invasive techniques for managing single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). However, current evidence from evidence-based medicine remains insufficient to conclusively demonstrate the comparative advantages of these methods.
methodsA total of 145 patients diagnosed with single-segment DLSS were enrolled from the spinal surgery department of Xinjiang Bazhou People's Hospital between January 2022 and August 2024. Fourteen patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 131 valid cases. Participants were divided into 2 groups: UBE (n = 70) and MED (n = 61), based on the surgical approach. The study compared the demographic and clinical characteristics of both groups (gender, age, disease duration, height, weight, BMI, and affected segment), perioperative metrics (operation time, blood loss, and hospital stay), and clinical outcomes at various time points (preoperatively, 3 days postoperatively, 1-month postoperatively, 3 months postoperatively, 1-year postoperatively, and 2 years postoperatively), including visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and imaging parameters (preoperative and postoperative disc height and dural sac expansion area).
resultsAll patients completed follow-up for over 2 years. The UBE group demonstrated significantly shorter operation times, reduced blood loss, and shorter hospital stays compared to the MED group (P < .05). No significant differences in VAS scores for back and leg pain or ODI scores were found between the groups at preoperative and postoperative time points (P > .05). Both groups showed significant improvements in VAS scores for back and leg pain and ODI scores at all postoperative time points relative to preoperative levels (P < .05). No significant differences in dural sac expansion area or disc height (preoperative and postoperative) were noted between the groups (P > .05).
conclusionBoth UBE and MED are effective treatments for single-segment DLSS, achieving substantial spinal canal decompression and improvement in clinical symptoms. UBE, however, offers advantages over MED in terms of shorter surgical time, reduced blood loss, and shorter hospital stays.
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.