SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression for single-level degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided spinal fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis: a GRADE-assessed meta-analysis on surgical parameters, clinical outcomes, and complications.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Review
- Uniportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Correlation Between Postoperative Changes in Imaging Parameters and Clinical Outcomes After Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Targeted Decompression Under Local Anesthesia versus Extensive Decompression Under General Anesthesia for Octogenarians with Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Real-World Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, both unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (UBED) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar decompression (PELD) recognized as effective treatments for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Nevertheless, there remains a divergence of opinion regarding the preferable operative procedure. Consequently, the meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and adverse events associated with UBED and PELD in the treatment of DLSS.
methodsMultiple databases were thoroughly screened on the internet to identify studies focusing on clinical endpoints and complications of UBED versus PELD in the management of single-level DLSS. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were recorded to assess clinical outcomes. Additionally, perioperative findings and complications were documented for analysis. Meta-analyses were conducted using Stata MP 17.0 software.
resultsA total of 14 studies involving 1222 participants were included in this analysis. The results indicated that UBED significantly reduced operative time, VAS scores for leg pain at three months postoperatively and ODI at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). Furthermore, UBED was associated with a significant increase in postoperative dural sac cross-sectional area compared to PELD (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between UBED and PELD concerning intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, VAS scores for back pain, overall complication rates, or dural tear rates (p > 0.05).
conclusionOur evidence suggests that there is no significant difference between UBED and PELD regarding most outcomes. However, UBED may reduce operative time while providing superior decompression efficacy compared to PELD. Therefore, these findings indicate that UBED appears more effective than PELD in treating single-level DLSS. Further multi-center randomized controlled trials are necessary before definitive conclusions can be drawn.
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.