ArticleNeurosurgical review2024
Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic and full-endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Arthroscopic-Assisted Uni-Portal Spinal Surgery Combined With Kirschner Wire Anchoring for Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy: A Technical Note and Preliminary Clinical Results.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison between unilateral biportal endoscopic and percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical keyhole surgery for patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Future Directions of Endoscopic Cervical Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review With Narrative Insights.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Short term complications and risk factors of unilateral biportal endoscopic cervical spine surgery in patients with cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy: a single center retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Early efficacy and safety of spinal endoscopy assisted anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Posterior uniportal endoscopic laminotomy for cervical ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: a case report and technical summary.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Effect of intervertebral foramen area and width on postoperative pain relief in patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy.BMC surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of the full-endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (FE-PCF) and the unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy (UBE-PCF) in the treatment of cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR).
methodsPatients who underwent posterior cervical spine surgery in our hospital from January 2020 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the surgical method, the patients were divided into two groups: FE-PCF group and UBE-PCF group. Perioperative data included operation time, Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay were collected. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS)-arm, VAS-neck, and Neck Diability Index (NDI) was used to evaluate the clinical outcomes at preoperative, postoperative 1 week and Last follow-up. Serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were recorded to evaluate surgical invasiveness.
resultsA total of 160 patients were included, including 89 cases of FE-PCF and 71 cases of UBE-PCF. The demographic and preoperative data showed no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05). The mean operating time was significantly shorter in the UBE-PCF group compared to FE-PCF group (P < 0.05). Serum CRP and CPK levels of the two groups both exhibited a pattern of rising and then falling, peaking one day following surgery and decreasing to near normal values three days after the operation. Compared with preoperative, both groups showed significant improvement in postoperative VAS and NDI scores, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). However, the differences in results between the groups were not significant.
conclusionsBoth UBE-PCF and FE-PCF are secure and efficient methods for treating CSR by continuous visualization. UBE-PCF offers predictable and adequate decompression within a reduced surgical duration, facilitated by its separate observation and operation channels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39414640What 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.