Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40448852›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025

Tubular versus unilateral biportal endoscopy: MRI analysis after unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis.

Nicolas Ross, Carlos Aleman, Alexandre Dhenin, Matthieu Vassal, Guillaume Lonjon

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nicolas RossOrthosud Montpellier, Clinique Saint Jean Sud de France, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3419-386X
Carlos AlemanHospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.ORCID 0009-0006-2183-5818
Alexandre DheninOrthosud Montpellier, Clinique Saint Jean Sud de France, Montpellier, France.
Matthieu VassalOrthosud Montpellier, Clinique Saint Jean Sud de France, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0009-0007-9596-1881
Guillaume LonjonOrthosud Montpellier, Clinique Saint Jean Sud de France, Montpellier, France. guilonjon@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3341-2592

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDegenerative lumbar spinal stenosis frequently requires surgical intervention when conservative treatments fail. Minimally invasive techniques such as unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression have largely replaced traditional open laminectomy because of effective decompression and reduced tissue damage. This study compared the radiological and clinical outcomes of tubular decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in patients with severe stenosis.

methodsThis was a retrospective, monocentric, nonrandomized study including 103 patients with severe lumbar spinal stenosis (52 tubular decompression, 51 UBE) from July 2020 to April 2024. The primary radiological outcomes were changes in anteroposterior diameter and dural sac surface area, assessed by MRI. Clinical outcomes included operative time, complication rates, and patient-reported outcomes with the Oswestry Disability Index and visual analog scale for pain, evaluated preopertatively, 3 and 12 months postoperatively.

resultsAs compared with tubular decompression, UBE resulted in a more significant increase in anteroposterior diameter (+ 4.9 vs. + 3.75 mm, p < 0.001) and dural sac surface area (+ 95.8 vs. + 85.4 mm², p = 0.038). However, with both techniques, clinical improvements were similar at 3 and 12 months, with no significant difference in Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale score, or patient satisfaction. The complication rate, including reoperation, was low in both groups, but the incidence of symptomatic hematoma was higher with UBE than tubular decompression.

conclusionBoth tubular decompression and UBE were effective for spinal stenosis treatment, with UBE providing superior radiological decompression, even in the early learning phase. However, the techniques were comparable in clinical outcomes at 3 months and 1 year. Further studies are needed to assess long-term results and refine patient selection criteria.

Indexed as

Decompression, SurgicalEndoscopyLaminectomyLumbar VertebraeSpinal StenosisAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeEndoscopyLumbar stenosisSpine surgeryTubular retractorUnilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE)

Identifiers

PMID40448852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.