ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Comparison of clinical outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with posterior percutaneous screw fixation in patients with lumbar spinal canal stenosis.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion with posterior percutaneous screw fixation (OLIF-PF) in the treatment of lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSCS). Methods: Data from December 2019 to January 2022 were analyzed. 54 patients in the ULIF group and 42 patients in the OLIF-PF group completed a minimum of 1 year follow-up. The demographic data, clinical indicators, laboratory indicators, radiological results, and complications were assessed and compared between the two groups. Results: There was no significant difference in the preoperative baseline between the two groups. The ULIF group experienced shorter operation time and more blood loss compared with the OLIF-PF group ( Conclusions: Both ULIF and OLIF-PF showed favorable mid-term outcomes in the treatment of LSCS. Both surgical methods significantly improved pain symptoms and lumbar sagittal balance. Long-term follow-up and larger clinical studies are needed to confirm this result.
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.