ArticlePloS one2025
Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) is one of the most commonly used methods for lumbar fusion. However, in recent years, the unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF) has also gradually attracted the attention of spine surgeons. This study aims to compare the perioperative and long-term clinical outcomes of the two procedures for lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).
methodsWe collected clinical data of patients who had undergone minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Mis-TLIF) or unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD) from January 2019 to December 2022. The primary outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 months postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures included 12-month visual analog scale (VAS) scores for low back pain (LBP) and leg pain (LP), and postoperative complication rate.
resultsThere were no significant differences in the preoperative VAS scores for LBP, LP, or ODI between the two groups. The VAS score for LBP was significantly lower in the UBE-LIF group than in the Mis-TLIF group 1 week postoperatively (1.4 ± 1.1 vs. 2.1 ± 1.0, P = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the VAS scores for LBP, LP, and ODI at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The length of stay was significantly lower in the UBE-LIF than in the Mis-TLIF group (5.2 ± 1.1 vs. 6.3 ± 1.2 days, P < 0.001). The operative time (188.9 ± 19.8 vs. 159.5 ± 11.6 minutes, P < 0.001) of the UBE-LIF group was significantly higher than that of the Mis-TLIF group, while the estimated blood loss (131.0 ± 21.9 vs. 191.7 ± 23.3 ml, P < 0.001) and postoperative drainage volume (123.0 ± 55.4 vs. 191.2 ± 47.5 ml, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the UBE-LIF than in the Mis-TLIF group. The complication rate was slightly higher in the UBE-LIF than in the Mis-TLIF group; however, the difference was not significant (11.5% vs. 5.0%, P = 0.299).
conclusionUBE-LIF can achieve better perioperative clinical outcomes than Mis-TLIF. However, in the long-term, these two procedures can achieve equivalent clinical efficacy.
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.