ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Comparison of clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and osterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of L4/5 lumbar disc herniation.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: To compare the clinical efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of L4/5 lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Methods: A total of eighty-five patients with L4/5 LDH were enrolled and assigned into two groups: the ULIF group ( Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in preoperative clinical characteristics (including age, disease duration, BMI, gender distribution, preoperative VAS scores, JOA scores, and serum inflammatory factor levels) between the two groups (all Conclusion: ULIF exhibits significant advantages in minimally invasive. Although it requires longer operative time and more intraoperative fluoroscopies, it is associated with reduced blood loss, attenuated inflammatory responses, shorter hospital stay, and superior early postoperative pain and functional recovery, facilitating patient rehabilitation.
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.