SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 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
- 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
- Comparative study of two minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusions for single-segment lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Association of postoperative modified Yaotong Tang with early recovery after unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective comparative cohort study using propensity score weighting.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
Objective: As an emerging surgical technique, the potential advantages of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) for lumbar spondylolisthesis have yet to be substantiated by robust evidence. This study aims to investigate effectiveness and security of ULIF compared to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in managing single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search in six databases for publications comparing ULIF with MIS-TLIF for lumbar spondylolisthesis, systematically reviewing literature up until July 19, 2025. Meta-analyses were carried out via Stata 17.0 software. Results: Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria. Compared with MIS-TLIF, ULIF demonstrated significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss [WMD = -35.71, 95% CI (-51.80, -19.63), Conclusion: In comparison to MIS-TLIF, ULIF presents several advantages including less intraoperative blood loss, reduced reliance on fluoroscopy, diminished postoperative drainage, earlier ambulation capabilities after surgery, shorter hospital stay as well as enhanced recovery from back and leg pain along with improved lumbar function in patients affected by lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, ULIF requires more operative time than MIS-TLIF. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025111069, CRD420251110694.
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.