Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40097536›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Comparative analysis of endoscopic discectomy for demanding lumbar disc herniation.

Dongping Wang, Jiamin Yang, Chang Liu, Wei Lin, Yuxian Chen, Shenglin Lei, Pinying Cheng, Yilin Huang, Shuling Gu, Yuewei Lin and 6 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

16 authors.

Dongping WangThe First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jiamin YangThe First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Chang LiuThe First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Wei LinThe First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yuxian ChenThe First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Shenglin LeiThe Shenzhen Clinical College of Medicine of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Pinying ChengThe Fifth Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yilin HuangThe Second Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Shuling GuThe Acupuncture moxibustion and Rehabilitation Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yuewei LinThe First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Huizhi GuoDivision of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 16, Airport Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, 510405, Guangdong, China.
Bing MaiThe First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zheng ZhangThe First Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yongxian LiDivision of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 16, Airport Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, 510405, Guangdong, China.
Shuncong ZhangDivision of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 16, Airport Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, 510405, Guangdong, China. zhangshuncong1479@gzucm.edu.cn.
Yongchao TangDivision of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, No. 16, Airport Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, 510405, Guangdong, China. zmdrntyc@163.com.

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province 2021A1515012168
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical effectiveness of two surgical techniques-unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) discectomy and percutaneous interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD)-in addressing high-grade down-migrated lumbar disc herniation (HDM-LDH). A retrospective analysis was conducted on 39 patients with HDM-LDH who underwent surgical treatment between January 2020 and February 2023. This cohort included 18 patients in the UBE group and 21 patients in the IELD group. The two endoscopic techniques were compared based on operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hemoglobin decrease, C-reactive protein levels, and length of hospital stay. Efficacy was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and modified MacNab criteria. The IELD group exhibited a shorter operative duration and reduced length of hospital stay, as well as diminished intraoperative blood loss compared to the UBE group (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in the reduction of hemoglobin levels or the increase in C-reactive protein between the two groups (P > 0.05). Postoperatively, both groups experienced significant decreases in VAS scores and ODI scores relative to preoperative values. One day post-surgery, the VAS score for low back pain was higher in the UBE group than in the IELD group, with the difference being statistically significant (P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found in the VAS scores for lower limb pain at any time point, nor in the ODI scores one day, one month, and three months post-surgery (P > 0.05). At the final follow-up, patient satisfaction rates were 94.44% in the UBE group and 95.24% in the IELD group, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). One patient in the IELD group developed neurological symptoms following surgery. Both UBE and IELD demonstrate significant clinical efficacy in the treatment of HDM-LDH. The IELD technique is characterized by its minimally invasive nature, whereas UBE offers greater flexibility and a notably enhanced decompression effect. Clinicians are advised to select the appropriate technique based on individual patient conditions and specific clinical scenarios.

Indexed as

DiskectomyEndoscopyIntervertebral Disc DisplacementLumbar VertebraeAdultBlood Loss, SurgicalFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeHigh-grade down-migrated lumbar disc herniationPercutaneous interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomyUnilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy

Identifiers

PMID40097536
PMCPMC11914065

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.