ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of endoscopic discectomy for demanding lumbar disc herniation.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Study of Ultrasound-Guided Modified Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy Combined With Medical Chitosan in Lumbar 4-5 Disc Herniation Treatment.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Trial
- Comparison of clinical efficacy and minimal invasiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of calcified lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Comparison of short-term clinical efficacy between percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopy in the treatment of upper lumbar disc herniation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- The Application of Selective Intersegmental Laminectomy With Irrigation Technology in the Treatment of Spinal Epidural Abscess.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy vs. percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar approach in lumbar disc herniation: A meta-analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
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
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.