ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Comparative analysis of single vs. double cage insertion in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological outcomes.
Article 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare clinical and radiological outcomes of single vs. double cage insertion in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-LIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 103 LDD patients undergoing UBE-LIF from June 2021 to June 2023, with 1:3 matching for age, sex, and operative level, forming unilateral cage (Group S, Results: Groups were similar in age, sex, BMI, smoking status, diabetes, and fusion level, except Group D had lower BMD (-1.7 ± 0.3 vs. -1.3 ± 0.5, Conclusion: Single-cage UBE-LIF offers comparable fusion rates and clinical outcomes with reduced surgical time and blood loss, despite a higher incidence of cage subsidence. Double-cage insertion may provide advantages in early stability and lower subsidence risk, making it preferable in select patients with lower BMD. Both techniques yield favorable long-term results in UBE-LIF for lumbar degenerative diseases.
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.