ArticleTranslational neuroscience2026
A retrospective study on the effects of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion on functional recovery in patients undergoing single-level lumbar interbody fusion.
Article in Translational neuroscience, 2026. 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
Objectives: To compare the clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in patients undergoing single-level L3-S1 lumbar interbody fusion. Methods: A total of 169 patients were included, with 83 patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) serving as the control group and 86 patients who underwent ULIF comprising the observation group. Short-term surgical outcomes, including muscle integrity, pain relief, functional recovery, and systemic inflammatory responses, were compared between the two groups. Results: Compared with PLIF, ULIF was associated with a longer operative time but less intraoperative blood loss and lower total postoperative drainage (p<0.05). At 1 and 3 months postoperatively, patients in the ULIF group had less pain and better lumbar function, as indicated by significantly lower visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores (p<0.05), without contradiction in long-term comparison. At the 1 year postoperatively, the ULIF group showed a higher intact multifidus muscle retention rate on the healthy side at the L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1 levels (all p<0.05), suggesting a potential benefit in muscle preservation. Serum levels of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), cortisol (Cor), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) increased in both groups at 1 and 3 days postoperatively; however, the increases were significantly lower in the ULIF group (p<0.05). Serum creatine kinase (CK) levels increased in both groups at 3 and 7 days postoperatively, but the increase was significantly smaller in the ULIF group, with a marked difference in CK reduction by day 7 (p<0.05). Conclusions: ULIF is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical technique for single-level lumbar interbody fusion. Compared with PLIF, ULIF promotes early pain relief and functional recovery, and reduces perioperative physiological stress and tissue trauma.
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.