SynthesisJoint diseases and related surgery2024
Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications of biportal and uniportal endoscopic decompression for the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Joint diseases and related surgery, 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.
- Minimally invasive endoscopic treatment of cervical radiculopathy: a comparative study of three surgical channel approaches.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- Complications and their prevention in unilateral biportal endoscopy: a systematic review with narrative insights and practical management algorithms.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Pooled it
- Long-Term Risk of Subsequent Cervical Fusion After Endoscopic Versus Open Cervical Decompression.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Comparison between unilateral biportal endoscopic and percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical keyhole surgery for patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- The unilateral biportal endoscopy journey: proposing a 10-tier difficulty progression framework for unilateral biportal endoscopy.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Hidden blood loss in percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy via the posterolateral approach.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2025Article
- Hidden blood loss and risk factors in percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2025Article
- Mechanisms and multimodal treatment of neuropathic pain associated with degenerative cervical spondylosis: Current status and progress.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and complication rates of decompression with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopy (PE) in cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR). MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive literature review was conducted up to April 2024 across multiple databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data, focusing on clinical studies that compare UBE with PE for posterior foraminotomy and discectomy decompression in CSR. The meta-analysis was performed with an emphasis on evaluating clinical outcomes such as operation time, blood loss, incision length, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck pain and arm pain, and complications.
resultsOut of an initial 1,041 studies identified from electronic databases, eight were deemed eligible based on title, abstract, and full-text screening. These studies involved 552 patients (269 males, 283 females; mean age: 53.9±11.4 years; range, 30 to 79 years), with 287 in the UBE group and 265 in the PE group. Meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in operation time between UBE and PE (mean difference [MD]=-3.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]:-19.38, 12.02; p=0.65). However, both blood loss (MD=17.01; 95% CI: 2.61, 31.41; p=0.02) and incision length (MD=11.62; 95% CI: 9.23, 14.01; p<0.00001) were significantly lower in the PE group compared to the UBE group. Regarding clinical outcomes, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of NDI (MD=0.12; 95% CI:-0.10, 0.34; 0.28), VAS for neck pain (MD=-0.06; 95% CI:-0.19, 0.06; p=0.32), VAS for arm pain (MD=-0.14; 95% CI:-0.26, -0.01; p=0.84), or complications (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 0.54, 2.10; p=0.85).
conclusionOur findings suggest that there are no significant disparities in clinical outcomes between UBE and PE, encompassing NDI, VAS for arm pain, and VAS for neck pain, as well as complication rates. Notably, compared to PE, UBE results in increased bleeding and longer incision lengths when treating CSR, without substantially reducing operation 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.