SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2025
Efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy vs. unilateral portal endoscopy for the treatment of 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 5 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
5 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
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression for thoracic intraspinal gout with ossified ligamentum flavum: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Efficacy of limaprost combined with unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: based on time effects and stratified analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Endoscopic spine surgery across the pediatric pathological spectrum: A systematic review of indications, techniques, and outcomes.Surgical neurology international · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a prevalent condition, particularly in aging populations, causing symptoms such as pain and disability. Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE) and Unilateral Portal Endoscopy (UPE) are minimally invasive techniques used to treat LSS. However, limited comparative data exist on their relative effectiveness. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of UBE and UPE in treating LSS. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library on January 19, 2025, without time restrictions. Studies included in the analysis were cohort studies comparing UBE and UPE in patients with clinically diagnosed LSS. Key outcomes such as surgical duration, postoperative pain (VAS scores), functional disability (ODI), intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and complications were assessed. Data were analyzed using fixed- or random-effects models depending on heterogeneity. Results: A total of six studies were included in the meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between UBE and UPE in postoperative leg pain (VAS scores), back pain (VAS scores), or functional disability (ODI scores). The pooled data showed that both techniques provided comparable outcomes for pain relief and functional recovery. However, UBE was associated with significantly shorter surgical durations compared to UPE [SMD = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.39, -0.07)]. No significant differences were found in intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, or postoperative complications between the two groups. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings, and publication bias was not detected. Conclusions: Both UBE and UPE are effective and comparable in treating LSS, with similar outcomes in terms of postoperative pain relief, functional recovery, and complications. UBE may offer the advantage of reduced surgical time. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up are needed to validate these findings. Systematic Review Registration: identifier (CRD420251090681).
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.