ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Biportal endoscopic laminectomy vs. open-door laminoplasty for 2-3 levels of cervical myelopathy: a prospective observational cohort study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) is increasingly used in cervical spine surgery, but comparative data against open-door laminoplasty (OD-L) for cervical myelopathy (CM) remain limited. This prospective observational study compared biportal endoscopic laminectomy (BE-L) with OD-L for multilevel CM, focusing on neurological recovery, perioperative burden, and sagittal alignment. Methods: From November 2022 to May 2024, 128 patients with 2-3 level CM were enrolled. Surgical approach followed patient preference. Propensity score matching (1:1) based on age, sex, BMI, preoperative mJOA, operated levels, and C2-C7 Cobb angle produced 50 matched pairs. Primary outcome was Results: After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced. Sensitivity analysis confirmed no significant differences between groups in cSVA ( Conclusion: BE-L achieves 12-month neurological and functional outcomes comparable to those of OD-L, with advantages in early postoperative recovery and shorter hospitalization. No statistically significant difference was detected at the primary endpoint. BE-L represents a viable minimally invasive alternative for carefully selected patients with 2-3 level CM.
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.