ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes between microscope-assisted tubular unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression and bilateral laminotomy for crossover decompression in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of microscope-assisted unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) and bilateral laminotomy for crossover decompression (BLCD) in the treatment of single-level lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Methods: This retrospective comparative study included 65 patients with single-level LSS who underwent microscope-assisted tubular decompression between July 2023 and August 2024. Thirty-five patients underwent ULBD, and 30 underwent BLCD. The operative approach was selected in routine clinical practice without a predefined standardized anatomy-based allocation protocol. Baseline characteristics, operative time, and postoperative hospital stay were compared between the two groups. Clinical outcomes were assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back pain and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) preoperatively and at postoperative follow-up time points. Radiological outcomes included changes in segmental lordosis and global lordosis, ipsilateral and contralateral facet joint preservation rates, postoperative dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCA), and DSCA change rate. Results: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The ULBD group had a significantly shorter operative time than the BLCD group (105.3 ± 9.5 min vs.128.7 ± 11.3 min, Conclusion: Both microscope-assisted ULBD and BLCD provide effective symptom relief and functional improvement in patients with single-level LSS. ULBD is associated with a shorter operative time, whereas BLCD provides better ipsilateral facet joint preservation and a greater radiological decompression effect. BLCD may therefore offer potential advantages in preserving posterior bony structures and achieving more extensive spinal canal decompression, while maintaining comparable short-term clinical efficacy.
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.