ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2023
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Muscle Invasiveness between Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy and Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation at L5/S1 Level.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2024Pooled it
- Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy vs Percutaneous Interlaminar Endoscopic Discectomy for L5 to S1 Disc Herniation: A Prospective Comparative Study With Quasirandom Allocation.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparison of biportal versus uniportal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.Asian spine journal · 2026Review
- Comparing unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for single-level 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 · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy vs. percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar approach in lumbar disc herniation: A meta-analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a clinical predictive model for the risk of recurrence after unilateral biportal endoscopic diskectomy.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Beyond the Microscope: Is Endoscopic Discectomy the Next Gold Standard for Lumbar Disc Herniation?Neurospine · 2026Article
- Comparison of clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation at different segments.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 · 2025Article
- Managing water dynamics for optimal outcomes in unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery: preliminary results in a new operative channel.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- A retrospective study on the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy treating lumbar disc herniation and concomitant grade I stable degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of endoscopic discectomy for demanding lumbar disc herniation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Percutaneous paravertebral endoscopic decompression for the treatment of far-out syndrome involving the L5 nerve root: technical report and preliminary results.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Effects of two endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgical sequences for treatment of unstable lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of clinical outcomes and cost-utility between unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for single-level lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective matched controlled study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy with patients' participation : better postoperative rehabilitation and satisfaction.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Complications in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery in the Last 10 Years: A Narrative Review.Neurospine · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveBoth unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) could achieve favorable outcomes for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). There are limited studies comparing the two different methods of endoscopic discectomy. The objective was to comprehensively compare the clinical outcome and muscle invasiveness of UBED and PEID for the treatment of LDH at L5/S1 level with at least 1-year follow-up.
methodsThe retrospective cohort study enrolled 106 LDH patients of L5/S1 level from January 2018 to December 2020. There were 51 patients who underwent UBED (22 males and 29 females, 43.8 ± 14.2 years old) and 55 patients underwent PEID (28 males and 27 females, 42.3 ± 13.8 years old). Clinical outcomes and surgical invasiveness were compared between the two groups for at least 1 year follow-up. Clinical outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, recurrence of LDH, intraoperative anesthesia time, operative time, number of intraoperative fluoroscopies, and postoperative length of stay. Surgical invasiveness was evaluated with serum CPK level and change rate of lean multifidus cross-sectional area (LMCSA). Independent-sample t test and paired sample t test were used to compare continuous data. Chi-square test and Fisher's precision probability tests were used to analyze the categorical data.
resultsBoth groups achieved favorable clinical outcomes at the last follow-up, including VAS and ODI (all Ps <0.05). The intraoperative anesthesia time for UBED was longer, but with no difference of operative time. As for intraoperative fluoroscopy times (2.5 vs 2.4), postoperative length of stay (2.1 vs 2.0 days), postoperative complications (5.9% vs 3.6%), there were also no significant difference. The serum CPK level and change rate of LMCSA for UBED was higher than PEID at postoperative 1st day. At the last follow-up, there was no significant difference in the change rate of LMCSA between the two groups (P = 0.096).
conclusionsBoth UBED and PEID could achieve favorable clinical outcomes for the treatment of L5/S1 LDH. Despite UBED is more invasive, the radiological manifestation of paraspinal muscle invasiveness was equal at last follow-up with at least 1 year. UBED is a safe and innovative alternative choice for treatment of LDH at L5/S1 level.
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.