Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40001180›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025

Comparison of clinical efficacy of posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy versus unilateral biportal endoscopy key-hole techniques for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy: a retrospective study with 2 years.

Yuhong Zhang, Jihang Dai, Guohua Dai, Wanda Zhan, Yongxiang Wang, Peng Hu

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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.

Yuhong ZhangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, No.98, Nantong West Rd., Yangzhou, Jiangsu, 225001, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0525-3061
Jihang DaiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, No.98, Nantong West Rd., Yangzhou, Jiangsu, 225001, China.
Guohua DaiDepartment of Spine Surgery, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, No.661, Huanghe Er Road, Binzhou, Shandong, 256600, China.
Wanda ZhanDepartment of Orthopaedics, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, No.98, Nantong West Rd., Yangzhou, Jiangsu, 225001, China.
Yongxiang WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University, No.98, Nantong West Rd., Yangzhou, Jiangsu, 225001, China. wyx918spine@yzu.edu.cn.
Peng HuDepartment of Spine Surgery, Binzhou Medical University Hospital, No.661, Huanghe Er Road, Binzhou, Shandong, 256600, China. qyhupeng@163.com.

Funding

China Medical Education Association 2022 major scientific problems and key topics of medical technology problems 2022KTM022Jiangsu Province "333 project" key industry talents BRA202201Yangzhou key research and development plan (social development) project YZ2022070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the clinical efficacy of posterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD) with unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) key-hole techniques for treating cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR).

methodsA retrospective study was performed for patients with CSR treated by PECD (n = 40) and UBE (n = 30). Patients background, operative data, and radiographic measurements were obtained. The visual analog scale (VAS) and neck disability index (NDI) were recorded preoperatively and 3 months and 2 years postoperatively, and modified Macnab criteria was recorded at 2 years postoperatively.

resultsThe background data of the two treatment groups were similar. There was no significant difference in hospitalization or fluoroscopy times (P > 0.05), whereas, the UBE group had shorter operative time and longer incision length than those of the PECD group (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in the postoperative cervical sagittal vertical axis compared to preoperative measurement (PECD: p = 0.009; UBE: p = 0.010). The VAS and NDI significantly improved in each time period in both groups (p < 0.001). The excellent/good rates were 87.5% in the PECD group and 90.0% in the UBE group. One case of postoperative nerve root irritation symptoms occurred in the PECD group and one case of mild spinal cord injury occurred in the UBE group.

conclusionUBE, as well as PECD, was recommended as an option for CSR because of easy operation, minimal invasiveness, high safety profiles, and satisfactory clinical efficacy.

Indexed as

Cervical VertebraeDiskectomy, PercutaneousEndoscopyRadiculopathySpondylosisAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeCervical spondylotic radiculopathyEfficacyKey-hole techniquePosterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomyUnilateral biportal endoscopy technique

Identifiers

PMID40001180
PMCPMC11863616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.