SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2025
Unilateral Endoscopic and Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical efficacy of uniportal and biportal endoscopic ULBD techniques in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas · 2026Trial
- Early clinical outcomes of simultaneous biportal endoscopic decompression for tandem spinal stenosis: a single-center retrospective study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Impact of mentorship on the learning curve of unilateral biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis: a cumulative sum analysis across 2 generations of surgeons.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2026Article
- 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
- [Impact of lamina formation range on lumbar biomechanics in unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery: a finite element analysis for surgical optimization].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Risk factors and prediction model for recurrence after unilateral dual-channel spinal endoscopy in patients with lumbar disc herniation.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: A Review of the Surgical Techniques, Indications and Anatomical Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluating the Efficacy of a Novel Titanium Cage System in ALIF and LLIF: A Retrospective Clinical and Radiographic Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and osterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of L4/5 lumbar disc herniation.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Early Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Adjacent Segment Disease After Lumbar Fusion.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Case Report: Series report and literature review on postoperative subdural hygroma complications following biportal endoscopic spinal surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- The Hidden Angles: Predictive Indices of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis at L4-5.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), the most frequently occurring degenerative spinal disease, significantly affects patient well-being. Preliminary clinical studies indicate favorable outcomes from unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and unilateral endoscopy (UE) for managing LSS. This meta-analysis assessed the clinical effectiveness and safety profiles of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) via these two minimally invasive endoscopic methods, aiming to establish evidence-based clinical recommendations. Materials and methods: A thorough examination of electronic databases was performed, encompassing PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Medline, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP. Research assessing the clinical outcomes and complications of UBE-ULBD compared to UE-ULBD in the treatment of LSS was deemed suitable for inclusion. The outcome measures extracted comprised the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), duration of surgery, length of hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, area of postoperative dural sac expansion, angle of ipsilateral facet joint resection, and occurrences of surgical complications. Results: Seventeen articles met inclusion criteria, encompassing one prospective cohort study, two case-control studies, and fourteen retrospective studies, involving 1, 457 total patients. The meta-analysis indicated that there were no statistically significant differences observed between the UBE and UE groups in terms of postoperative VAS scores for back and leg pain, as well as ODI scores at the intervals of 1 week, 3-6 months, and 6-12 months ( Conclusions: The meta-analysis indicates that the UBE technique exhibits similar long-term clinical efficacy, blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and rates of complications when compared to the UE technique. However, the UBE group exhibited shorter surgical duration and greater dural sac expansion area.
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.