ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: Radiographic and clinical outcomes in grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis.Medicine · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Spine Surgery vs. Conventional Approaches for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
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
objectiveThis study retrospectively compared the early clinical and imaging outcomes of the single-level Meyerding Grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) using an expandable tubular retractor system under a surgical loupe.
methodsThis was a retrospective study. This study included fifty-five patients, with twenty-eight underwent ULIF and twenty-seven who underwent MI-TLIF at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University from June 2020 to July 2021. Demographic characteristic, surgical parameters, laboratory results, and clinical and imaging outcomes were collected and compared between the two groups.
resultsIn our retrospective study, the ULIF group was superior in terms of the mean total blood loss, intraoperative blood loss than MI-TLIF (P < 0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference in hidden blood loss between the two groups (P > 0.05). Moreover, the mean operative time was significantly longer than in the ULIF group in the MI-TLIF group (P < 0.05). The mean CK and CRP levels on the first postoperative day were significantly lower in the ULIF group (P < 0.001). All clinical scores improved significantly after the operation in both groups. The VAS back score for pain at two weeks and 1 month postoperatively was significantly lower in the ULIF group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the change in the dural sac cross-sectional area preoperatively or at the final postoperative follow-up. The fusion rate was significantly greater in ULIF at 6 months after the operation (P < 0.05).
conclusionCompared to MI-TLIF, the ULIF technique has the advantages of less hemorrhage, less inflammation, and earlier fusion. However, this approach has a limited operation time. However, further clinical outcomes need to be followed up in the longer term.
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.