ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF) and conventional open TLIF in degenerative lumbar spine disease: a radiological, clinical, and laboratory study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParallel to the advancement of endoscopic techniques, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF) has become a popular surgical method in the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of UBE-LIF and conventional open TLIF techniques.
methodsPatients with single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent either UBE-LIF or conventional open TLIF at our institution between January 2021 and May 2024 were included in this single-center study. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), both preoperatively and postoperatively. Operative time, length of hospital stay, laboratory markers of muscle injury (hemoglobin, CRP, ESR, WBC, myoglobin), and radiological fusion rates were also evaluated.
resultsAmong the 100 patients who met the inclusion criteria, UBE-LIF was performed in 74, and conventional open TLIF in 26. JOA, VAS-leg, VAS-low back pain, and ODI scores significantly improved in both groups postoperatively (p < 0.001). Clinical scores did not differ significantly between the groups at any time point (p > 0.05). Postoperative blood transfusion was required in 3 patients (11.5%) in the conventional group, whereas none was needed in the UBE-LIF group (p = 0.003). Length of hospital stay was also significantly shorter in the UBE-LIF group (45.4 vs. 98.6 h, p < 0.001). The difference in 12-month postoperative fusion rates between UBE-LIF (100%) and conventional open TLIF (92.3%) was not significant (p = 0.07). Postoperative progression of Goutallier grade (paraspinal muscle degeneration) was not observed in the UBE-LIF group, whereas it occurred in 21 patients (80.8%) in the conventional open TLIF group (p < 0.001).
conclusionClinical outcomes improved similarly with both techniques. However, postoperative muscle degeneration, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay were more favorable in the UBE-LIF group. UBE-LIF appears to be a strong alternative to conventional open TLIF.
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.