ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression compared with tubular or uniportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Comparative evidence regarding unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression vs. tubular decompression or uniportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis remains limited and inconsistent. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative clinical studies that evaluated UBE vs. tubular decompression or uniportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Pooled analyses were performed for predefined outcomes, and comparator-specific analyses were additionally performed to improve interpretability. Results: A total of 1,395 patients from 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall complications and dural tear or cerebrospinal fluid leak events were lower in the unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression group than in the pooled control group. The unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression group also showed modestly lower ODI and pain scores at the final follow-up, although the magnitude of benefit varied across outcomes. In addition, the changes in the dural sac cross-sectional area after surgery also favored unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression, with low to moderate heterogeneity. Conclusions: For lumbar spinal stenosis, UBE may provide comparable overall safety and modest advantages in selected perioperative, clinical, and radiological outcomes compared with tubular or uniportal endoscopic decompression. However, the clinical relevance of some statistically significant differences remains uncertain, and further high-quality comparative studies are required.
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.