Trial reportBrazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas2026
Clinical efficacy of uniportal and biportal endoscopic ULBD techniques in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas, 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
This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) performed using unilateral endoscopy (UE) versus unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Sixty LSS patients were randomly assigned to a UE-ULBD group or a UBE-ULBD group (30 cases each). Intraoperative blood loss, operative time, time to first ambulation, length of hospital stay, and intraoperative/postoperative complications were recorded. Low back and leg pain were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), and functional status was evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) prior to surgery and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Quality of life was measured by the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) questionnaire preoperatively and at 6 months post-surgery. Surgical outcomes were evaluated using the modified MacNab criteria. No differences were found between groups for intraoperative blood loss, operative time, time to first ambulation, length of hospital stay, or intraoperative/postoperative complication rates (P>0.05). Compared with preoperative values, both groups showed notable reductions in VAS and ODI scores at 3 and 6 months postoperatively (P<0.05). At 6 months postoperatively, all SSS dimension scores were significantly improved in both groups (P<0.05), and no intergroup differences were detected (P>0.05). The modified MacNab excellent-to-good rates were 93.33% in the UBE-ULBD group and 90% in the UE-ULBD group, with no significant between-group difference (P>0.05). UE-ULBD and UBE-ULBD represent reliable minimally invasive options for the surgical management of LSS.
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.