ArticleBMC surgery2026
Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level mild to moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the early clinical outcomes and radiographic outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of single-level mild to moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis (LS).
methodsClinical data of patients with single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent ULIF or MIS-TLIF at Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University between January 2018 and August 2025 were retrospectively analyzed, including 33 patients in the ULIF group and 33 patients in the MIS-TLIF group. The baseline characteristics, perioperative parameters and radiographic outcomes were compared between the two groups.
resultsAll surgeries were successfully completed in all patients. The operative time was significantly longer in the ULIF group than in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.05). However, the ULIF group had significantly less intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with the MIS-TLIF group (all P < 0.05). In the early postoperative period, the levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were significantly lower in the ULIF group than in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.05). Compared with preoperative baseline values, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores improved significantly at all postoperative time points in both groups (all P < 0.05). Nevertheless, the VAS scores for low back pain and leg pain at 3 days postoperatively were significantly lower in the ULIF group than in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.05). Radiographically, all radiographic parameters improved significantly postoperatively in both groups compared with preoperative values (P < 0.05), with no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe efficacy of ULIF in the treatment of single-level mild to moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis is comparable to that of MIS-TLIF. However, the ULIF group is associated with less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative drainage, and faster postoperative recovery, albeit with a longer operative time.
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.