ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of clinical effects of endoscopic powered osteotome and endoscopic powered drill for UBE-TLIF surgery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to compare the efficacy of two endoscopic instruments powered osteotome and powered drill in treating single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis via unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF). We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 127 patients treated at Qilu Hospital of Shandong University between January 2021 and December 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: the bone-drill (BD) group (71 cases) and the bone-osteotome (BO) group (56 cases). Various surgical indicators were assessed, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and complication rates. Clinical efficacy was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) for lower back and limb pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified MacNab criteria, and the Brantigan and Steffee method for interbody fusion assessment. Results showed that the BD group had an average operation time of 151.41 ± 19.03 min, whereas the BO group completed the procedure significantly faster, averaging 128.48 ± 16.92 min. Intraoperative blood loss was comparable between groups (BD: 102.11 ± 34.26 ml; BO: 120.70 ± 32.89 ml). The BO group showed higher postoperative drainage volume (85.47 ± 19.01 ml) than the BD group (71.25 ± 14.55 ml). Hospitalization durations were similar (BD: 8.92 ± 1.22 days; BO: 9.16 ± 1.12 days). Both groups showed significant improvement in VAS and ODI scores at 3 and 12 months post-surgery (P < 0.05), with no significant differences between groups (P > 0.05). Notably, the BO group exhibited superior intervertebral fusion quality at 3 months compared to the BD group (P < 0.05), with no differences observed at 12 months. In conclusion, the UBE-TLIF technique employing a powered osteotome significantly reduces operation time and enhances intervertebral fusion compared to the powered drill method.
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.