Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35465181›Full record

ArticleApplied bionics and biomechanics2022

Short-Term Postoperative Pain and Function of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Single-Segment Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Weihao Zhu, Yu Yao, Jie Hao, Wenbin Li, Feng Zhang

RetractedOpen access · goldAbstract readRetracted Publication
In one paragraph

Article in Applied bionics and biomechanics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus microdiscectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Weihao ZhuMedical School of Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu Province 226001, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9184-2750
Yu YaoDepartment of Orthopedics, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu Province 226001, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5717-2706
Jie HaoDepartment of Orthopedics, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu Province 226001, China.
Wenbin LiDepartment of Orthopedics, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu Province 226001, China.
Feng ZhangDepartment of Orthopedics, Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu Province 226001, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6994-629X
Nantong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Spinal surgery is gradually moving toward minimally invasive surgery, but there is still some lack of knowledge about the Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) technique that has been hotly debated in recent years. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify whether UBE is superior to percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for relieving short-term postoperative pain and promoting functional recovery. Methods: Computer searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were performed to search for studies on UBE versus PELD for single-segment lumbar disc herniation (ssLDH) from the time of database construction to Mar. 2022, and two investigators independently performed literature screening and data extraction, and evaluation of the quality of the included studies was observed as operation time, complications, and visual analogue scale (VAS) at each preoperative and postoperative stage as well as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and meta-analysis was performed by applying the Review Manager 5.4 software. Results: Meta-analysis showed that PELD had shorter operation time (MD = 35.36, 95% CI (4.67, 66.04), Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that both UBE and PELD are effective in relieving short-term postoperative pain and promoting functional recovery, and there is no difference in complications between them; UBE requires longer operation time, and PELD may be superior in relieving immediate postoperative pain. This trial is registered with PROSPERO ID: CRD42021287810.

Identifiers

PMID35465181
PMCPMC9023232
OpenAlexW4224128288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.