ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Unilateral biportal endoscopy via two different approaches for upper lumbar disc herniation: a technical note.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- One-hole split endoscopy versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and complications.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy vs. unilateral portal endoscopy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Computed tomography-guided oxygen-ozone injection for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation complicated with lumbar spinal stenosis.Medical gas research · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy vs. percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar approach in lumbar disc herniation: A meta-analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopy for upper lumbar disc herniation: surgical challenges and clinical outcomes.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of endoscopic discectomy for demanding lumbar disc herniation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Far-Lateral Transforaminal Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Upper Lumbar Disc Herniations.Neurospine · 2025Article
- [Application status and considerations of unilateral biportal endoscopy technique].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe traditional surgical procedures for upper lumbar disc herniation (ULDH) usually lead to frequent complications. We aim to investigate the clinical efficacy of the unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) technique in treating upper lumbar disc herniation (ULDH).
methodsFrom January 2020 to December 2021, the clinical data of 28 patients with ULDH treated with the UBE technique were collected and analyzed for surgery time under UBE, postsurgical drainage, postsurgical hospital stay, and complications. The clinical efficacy was evaluated according to the modified MacNab score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS) of low back pain and lower limb pain before the surgery; one week, one month, and three months after the surgery; and at the last follow-up.
resultsAll patients underwent the UBE surgery successfully. The surgery time under UBE for non-fusion cases was 47.50 ± 11.84 min (monosegment) and 75.00 ± 20.66 min (two segments), while that for fusion cases was 77.50 ± 21.02 min. The postsurgical drainage for non-fusion cases was 25.00 ± 13.94 mL (monosegment) and 38.00 ± 11.83 mL (two segments), while that for fusion cases was 71.25 ± 31.72 mL. The postsurgical hospital stay was 8.28 ± 4.22 days. The follow-up time was 15.82 ± 4.54 months. The VAS score for each time period after the surgery was significantly lower (P < 0.05), while the ODI was significantly higher than that before the surgery (P < 0.05). According to the modified MacNab scoring standard, the ratio of excellent to good was 96.43% at the last follow-up. Two patients experienced transient numbness and pain in their lower limbs and no activity disorder after the surgery, and they recovered after conservative treatment.
conclusionsThe clinical effect of UBE technique in treating ULDH was reliable. According to the needs of the disease, the interlaminar approach or paraspinal approach of the UBE technique was selected. This technique took into account the effect of treatment, achieved the purpose of minimal invasiveness, and did not require special instruments. Therefore, it has the potential for clinical application.
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.