ArticleBMC surgery2026
Clinical and imaging study of unilateral biportal endoscopy in lumbar revision surgery.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the surgical technique and evaluate the preliminary clinical outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE) for lumbar revision surgery.
methodsThis retrospective case series included 11 patients who underwent lumbar revision surgery using the UBE technique between 2023 and 2024. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively to assess clinical improvement. Perioperative parameters, including operative time, blood loss, and complications were documented. Clinical outcomes were categorized using the MacNab criteria at the 6-month follow-up. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and presented as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR).
resultsAll surgical procedures were completed successfully without intraoperative neural injury. The median operative time was 96.0 min (IQR: 79.0–111.5), and the median intraoperative blood loss was 49.0 ml (IQR: 40.0–56.5). No postoperative complications, such as infection or dural tears, were observed. At the 6-month follow-up, the median leg pain VAS score decreased substantially from 7.0 (IQR: 6.0–8.5) preoperatively to 2.0 (IQR: 1.0–2.0). Similarly, the median ODI score improved from 66.0 (IQR: 58.0–74.0) to 30.0 (IQR: 27.0–33.0). According to the MacNab criteria, 90.9% of patients achieved excellent or good outcomes.
conclusionPreliminary findings suggest that the UBE technique is a feasible and safe minimally invasive option for lumbar revision surgery. The procedure achieved satisfactory early clinical outcomes with manageable perioperative trauma. Further studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up are warranted to validate these initial observations.
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.