ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2025
Comparison of clinical outcomes between biportal and uniportal full-endoscopy techniques in lumbar spinal stenosis with bilateral symptoms.
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Spine endoscopy in transition: the case for mastery of both uniportal and biportal techniques.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUniportal full-endoscopy (UFE) technique has been continuously developed and applied for treating lumbar spinal stenosis. However, achieving effective decompression outcome of using the UFE technique remains technically demanding and uncertain. Previously, we have proposed the biportal full-endoscopy (BFE) technique to integrate the respective advantages of both UFE and unilateral biportal endoscopy technique. There is limited published data on the comparison of clinical outcomes between biportal and UFE techniques in lumbar spinal stenosis with bilateral symptoms.
aimTo contrast the clinical outcomes between biportal and UFE techniques for treating lumbar spinal stenosis with bilateral symptoms.
methodsThis study retrospectively examined 100 patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis and bilateral symptoms. Among them, 52 cases were part of group A (BFE technique group), and 48 cases belonged to group B (UFE technique group). The visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified Macnab criteria were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes.
resultsGroup A had significantly shorter operation time than group B. Both groups experienced substantial relief in lower back and lower extremity pain on the severe side at postoperative 3 days, 3 months, and 12 months. Group A had notably lower VAS scores for mild side lower extremity pain at postoperative 3 months and 12 months compared to group B. Group A's ODI scores were significantly lower at postoperative 3 months and 12 months, whereas group B's scores did not significantly differ from preoperative values. Group A's ODI scores were significantly lower than group B's at postoperative 3 months and 12 months. Group A had a significantly higher excellent and good response rate (94.23%) compared to group B (81.25%) at postoperative 12 months based on the modified Macnab scale outcomes.
conclusionThe BFE technique offers multiple benefits, including reduced trauma and quicker recovery as a minimally invasive surgery, and enhanced decompression efficiency over the UFE technique when treating lumbar spinal stenosis with bilateral symptoms.
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.