Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39751813›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025

Learning curve insights in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) spinal procedures: proficiency cutoffs and the impact on efficiency and complications.

Jing Peng, Rongzhen Lin, Duopei Fang, Zhaojun He, Qinghao Zhao, Qingchu Li

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Optimizing the mathematical model and technical standards for unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery through machine learning-based video 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Endoscopic spine surgery.Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013) · 2026
    Review
  6. Ligamentum flavum preservation via unilateral biportal endoscopy in lumbar discectomy: a "Door-Opening" technique and its clinical outcomes.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 · 2026
    Article
  7. How many cases to proficiency? A systematic review of the learning curve in endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion.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 · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. [Impact of surgeon's dominant hand-side consistency with surgical approach on operational efficiency of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a prospective cohort study].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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 · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jing Peng *Department of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Rongzhen Lin *Department of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Duopei Fang *Department of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhaojun HeDepartment of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Qinghao ZhaoDepartment of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. qinghao.z@foxmail.com.
Qingchu LiDepartment of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 15207184560@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study systematically assesses the learning curve of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) techniques across various spinal surgeries, focusing on its influence on operative efficiency and complication rates to guide optimized training and practice.

methodsSystematic searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library identified studies on UBE learning curves for patients aged 18 or older, comparing early and mastery phases. Two reviewers independently extracted data on surgery type, operative time, and complications. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We performed subgroup analyses based on different UBE surgery types, examining variations in operative time and complication rates across each procedure.

resultsThirteen studies, including 1217 patients, were included, focusing on lumbar spine surgeries. The average learning curve cutoff for UBE procedures was 32.18 cases, with the mastery phase reducing operative time by an average of 48.14 min (95% CI 35.80, 60.47; p < 0.001), although high heterogeneity observed. In the mastery phase, single-group analysis of 707 patients showed a mean operative time of 92.38 min (95% CI 77.35, 107.41). Complication analysis across 12 studies (1182 patients) revealed a significantly lower rate in the mastery phase (odds ratio, OR = 0.29; p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed significant reductions in both operative time and complications for UBE-LIF and UBE-LD/ULBD during the mastery phase, while no significant changes were observed for UBE-PCF. Additionally, specific complications, such as dural tears and incomplete decompression, were significantly reduced in the mastery phase.

conclusionThis systematic review confirms a learning curve in UBE surgery, with improvements in operative time and complications. Procedure-specific cutoff points provide guidance for training and future research.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEndoscopyLearning CurveLumbar VertebraeNeurosurgical ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsSpinal DiseasesHumansOperative TimeComplicationsCutoff pointLearning curveSpine surgerySurgical efficiencyUnilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.