ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2026
Outcomes and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar spinal stenosis.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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 assess the outcomes and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique in treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
methodsA total of 180 LSS cases treated in Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University (March 2022-March 2025) were selected, including 85 patients (PTED group) treated with percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and 95 patients (UBE group) with UBE surgery. Therapeutic outcomes, surgical metrics (operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative drainage), clinical indicators (hospitalization duration/costs), lumbar functional recovery (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), pain (Visual Analogue Scale [VAS]), laboratory findings (C-reactive protein, CRP; interleukin-6, IL-6; creatine kinase, CK), and safety (infection, nerve root damage, and dural sac rupture) were comparatively assessed across groups. Furthermore, to gain in-depth insights into the predictors of treatment response, both univariate and multivariate analytical methods were applied.
resultsThe groups were equivalent in excellent-and-good rates, hospitalization expenses, and overall complication rates. UBE recipients showed higher values in intraoperative bleeding, drainage volume, and hospital stay than PTED-treated cases, but with shorter operative duration. Both cohorts displayed reduced ODI and VAS (lumbago and lower leg pain) scores at one and three months postoperatively compared to their preoperative levels; although differences in postoperative ODI and lower back VAS scores were non-significant between groups, the VAS of leg pain was statistically lower in the UBE group versus the PTED group. In the UBE group, all laboratory indices presented a postoperative rise but remained notably lower relative to the PTED group's values. L5-S1 involvement, combined-type stenosis, a Schizas grade D, and comorbid hypertension were independent predictors of suboptimal efficacy in LSS patients, as established by univariate and multivariate analysis.
conclusionWhen used to treat LSS, UBE demonstrates therapeutic efficacy, safety, and treatment costs comparable to PTED. Yet, UBE contributes to shortened surgical duration, milder post-surgical leg pain, and aids in lessening the abnormal rise of laboratory examination indexes. Nonetheless, UBE is linked to increased intraoperative bleeding, greater drainage volume, and a longer hospitalization period.
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.