Observational studyMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2024
Comparative Efficacy of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy vs Traditional Surgery in Lumbar Degenerative Disorders.
Observational study in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2024. 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 It has been retracted, and should not be counted.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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Modifiable risk factors for perioperative hidden blood loss in unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025Pooled it
- Biportal endoscopic versus conventional open spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Retracted: Comparative Efficacy of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy vs Traditional Surgery in Lumbar Degenerative Disorders.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lumbar degenerative diseases, such as lumbar disc herniation, cause significant pain and neurological deficits. Traditional surgeries like posteriior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) have drawbacks, including extensive tissue damage. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) compared with PLIF, with a focus on clinical outcomes and complication rates. MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective study (January 2020 to January 2023) included 109 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases; 53 treated with UBE and 56 with PLIF. We followed Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines with ethical approval. The statistical analyses used t-tests and Chi-square tests (P<0.05). RESULTS The UBE group showed significantly shorter surgery times (107.3±11.2 minutes) and less intraoperative blood loss (50.2±5.7 mL) compared with the PLIF group (113.5±15.7 minutes; 91.3±9.0 mL). Postoperative pain reduction was greater in the UBE group, with a mean Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score of 3.50±0.85 vs 4.10±0.95 in the PLIF group (P<0.001). The UBE group also had better lumbar function recovery, with higher Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores (19.80±2.30 vs 17.20±2.05; P<0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was lower in the UBE group (5.67%) compared with the PLIF group (14.29%), although this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.14). CONCLUSIONS UBE could offer significant clinical efficacy in treating lumbar degenerative diseases. It may improve surgical outcomes, reduce postoperative pain, and present a favorable safety profile. These findings suggest UBE might be a viable, minimally invasive option, promoting better recovery and fewer complications.
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.