ReviewEuropean journal of medical research2026
Advancements in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a narrative review.
Review in European journal of medical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Indirect Decompression Using the Keyhole Transfacet Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Application.International journal of spine surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionLumbar fusion remains a cornerstone for managing degenerative lumbar disorders. Recently, Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ULIF) has emerged as a key minimally invasive technique with promising clinical outcomes. This narrative review analyzes current applications, technical advancements, and the existing evidence base for ULIF. It also highlights the challenges, controversies, and research gaps that may affect its widespread adoption, offering insights to guide future clinical practice.
methodsA structured literature search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted for relevant articles published through August 2025. Search terms included "unilateral biportal endoscopic," "UBE," "biportal endoscopic spine surgery," "lumbar interbody fusion," "ULIF," and "BE-TLIF." This review critically synthesizes findings from clinical studies, technical reports, and systematic reviews focusing on surgical techniques, clinical efficacy, fusion outcomes, and complications associated with ULIF.
resultsULIF is increasingly utilized for a wide spectrum of lumbar degenerative diseases. Comparative studies indicate that while ULIF yields comparable long-term fusion rates and clinical improvements to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), it offers distinct advantages, such as reduced intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stays. However, these benefits are often offset by longer operative times, particularly during the initial learning curve. Technical innovations, including novel cage designs and navigation systems, aim to enhance fusion and restore sagittal alignment. Despite its potential, the technique's adoption is challenged by this steep learning curve and a distinct complication profile, including concerns regarding dural tears, epidural hematomas, and nerve root injuries. Questions also remain regarding its cost-effectiveness and its ability to achieve superior radiological outcomes.
conclusionsULIF represents a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative for treating various lumbar spine disorders. However, its widespread adoption is constrained by its technical demands, a specific complication profile, and unresolved questions regarding its cost-effectiveness and long-term radiological benefits. Future high-quality research, particularly multicenter Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), is necessary to definitively establish its long-term efficacy, standardize surgical techniques, and optimize patient safety.
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.