ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2026
Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Arthroscopic-Assisted Uniportal Spinal Surgery Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2026. 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.
- Single-incision uniportal endoscopic bilateral decompression for two adjacent levels of lumbar spinal stenosis: a technical report.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Arthroscopic-Assisted Uniportal Spinal Surgery Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus endoscopic foraminoplasty decompression for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of uni-portal non-coaxial spinal endoscopic surgery versus unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Effects of postoperative electrical stimulation on quadriceps muscular atrophy in patients with incomplete cervical spinal cord injury. A retrospective study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety profile, and clinical outcomes of AUSS versus PELD in single-level LSS treatment.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study included 68 consecutive LSS patients treated between January 2023 and January 2024: 35 underwent AUSS and 33 underwent PELD. Primary outcomes included total operative time, extracanal working time, intracanal decompression duration, incision length, fluoroscopy exposure time, intraoperative blood loss, preoperative/postoperative day 3 hemoglobin levels, hospitalization duration, total treatment costs, and postoperative complications. Clinical assessments utilized the visual analog scale (VAS) for axial back/leg pain evaluation, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for functional assessment, and modified MacNab criteria for clinical success. Minimum follow-up was 12 months.
resultsAll 68 patients completed 12-month follow-up with no demographic disparities between groups. AUSS exhibited superior operative efficiency with significantly shorter total operating time (45.6 ± 3.14 vs. 54.6 ± 5.54 min, p < 0.01) and intracanal decompression time (21.25 ± 2.38 vs. 35.4 ± 3.36 min, p < 0.01), although with marginally prolonged extracanal operating time (27.35 ± 3.28 vs. 18.6 ± 3.54 min, p < 0.01). Fluoroscopy duration was significantly reduced in AUSS (7.45 ± 2.39 vs. 38.38 ± 7.62 s, p < 0.01). AUSS required larger incisions (19.74 ± 2.13 vs. 7.83 ± 1.08 mm, p < 0.01) and resulted in higher estimated blood loss (17.18 ± 6.43 vs. 9.53 ± 1.38 mL, p < 0.05), and higher total costs (21937.44 ± 579.36 vs. 17459.44 ± 589.26 ¥, p < 0.05), though without clinically significant changes in hemoglobin levels (130.24 ± 7.02 vs. 130.31 ± 6.25, p > 0.05) and postoperative hospital stay (6.48 ± 2.72 vs. 6.84 ± 1.93 days, p > 0.05). AUSS had lower postoperative VAS-leg pain scores at early postoperative periods (3 days and 1 month) (p < 0.01) and higher patient satisfaction rates (94.29% vs. 84.85% excellent/good outcomes, p < 0.05). One PELD case required secondary surgical interventions within 12 months for persistent radiculopathy, whereas no AUSS patients required reoperations. Overall complication rates were comparable between groups.
conclusionBoth techniques showed similar safety. AUSS offers superior operative efficiency, reduced radiation exposure, and better early clinical outcomes compared to PELD for LSS treatment. Despite slightly larger incisions and increased blood loss, AUSS demonstrates enhanced decompression completeness with lower revision rates, suggesting AUSS as a valuable alternative to PELD, particularly for cases requiring comprehensive neural decompression.
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.