ReviewAsian spine journal2026
Comparison of biportal versus uniportal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.
Review in Asian spine journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to the letter to the editor: Interpreting meta-analyses of biportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Letter to the editor: Interpreting meta-analyses of biportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.Asian spine journal · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. PURPOSE: To perform a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of uniportal versus biportal endoscopic spine surgery across decompression procedures in patients with lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Uniportal endoscopic spine surgery has been a widely adopted minimally invasive technique, whereas biportal endoscopy has recently emerged as a promising alternative with potential advantages in surgical outcomes.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Eleven studies encompassing 374 uniportal and 368 biportal patients were included. Outcomes analyzed were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, complication rates, operative time, and length of hospital stay.
resultsBiportal endoscopic surgery was associated with a significantly lower ODI at 1-3 months and at final follow-up compared with uniportal surgery. However, uniportal discectomy demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and length of hospital stay than biportal discectomy. No significant differences were observed between approaches in terms of VAS scores, complication rates, or ODI at other time points.
conclusionsBoth uniportal and biportal endoscopic spine surgeries yield comparable postoperative outcomes in LDD. Although biportal surgery showed a modest advantage in ODI improvement, it did not reach the minimal clinically important difference. Uniportal surgery demonstrated greater efficiency in terms of operative time and recovery, particularly for discectomy procedures.
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.