ArticleBMJ open2025
Percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopy versus uniportal endoscopy for lumbar spinal stenosis: a single-centre, prospective, non-randomised cohort trial protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06365229 (Percutaneous Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Versus Uniportal Endoscopy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis), which is not on this 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.
Percutaneous Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Versus Uniportal Endoscopy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: a Single-center, Prospective, Non-randomized Cohort Trial Protocol
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
introductionUnilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique and uniportal endoscopic (UE) technique have both been used to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with satisfactory outcomes. Although previous studies have reported no difference in clinical outcomes between UBE and UE techniques, the evidence was weak due to the lack of a prospective design. Therefore, the present prospective study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of UBE and UE for treating patients with LSS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre, prospective, non-randomised cohort trial is designed to compare the efficacy and safety of UBE and UE in treating patients with LSS. We will include 120 participants (60 per group) with single-level or double-level LSS. The primary outcome will be determined using the Oswestry Disability Index at the 12-month postoperative follow-up between the two groups. Secondary outcomes will include the following: visual analogue scale scores for lower back and leg pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, modified MacNab criteria, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, operation time, blood loss and duration of postoperative hospital stay. Radiographic outcomes will include the enlargement ratio of the dural sac, bony decompression range and preservation rate of the facet joint measured on postoperative radiological data. Laboratory outcomes will include postoperative creatine kinase level and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Adverse events will be recorded to assess safety. Participants will be assessed by a blinded assessor preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 days, 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received approval from the Institutional Review Board of Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University (2022-P2-336-02). All participants will provide informed consent prior to enrolment, and the study will be conducted in strict accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Study results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and presentations at academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06365229) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200066192).
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.