Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40222729›Full record

ArticleAsian spine journal2025

Comparison of surgical outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic technique and open microdiscectomy in patients with single-level lumbar disc herniation: a single-center retrospective study in China.

Tianyao Ke, Qiulin He, Qiying Wang, Long Li, Changgui Shi, Jiaxue Zeng, Qing Li

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Asian spine journal, 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Risk Factor Analysis of Residual Low Back Pain After Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy in Patients With Lumbar Disc Herniation.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  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

7 authors.

Tianyao KeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Liupanshui Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Liupanshui, China.
Qiulin HeDepartment of Orthopaedics, Liupanshui Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Liupanshui, China.
Qiying WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Liupanshui Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Liupanshui, China.
Long LiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Liupanshui Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Liupanshui, China.
Changgui ShiSpinal Minimally Invasive Center of the Second Affiliated Hospital of the Naval Medical University of the People's Liberation Army of China (Shanghai Long March Hospital), Shanghai, China.
Jiaxue ZengDepartment of Orthopaedics, Liupanshui Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Liupanshui, China.
Qing LiDepartment of Emergency Orthopaedics, The Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China.

Funding

Liupanshui City Science and Technology Program Project 52020-2023-0-1-54
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designSingle-center retrospective cohort analysis. PURPOSE: To compare surgical outcomes between the unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) and open microdiscectomy for the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation (LDH). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Open microdiscectomy remains the gold standard for LDH, while UBE has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative. However, comparative evidence on efficacy, safety, and recovery profiles remains limited.

methodsThis was a single-center retrospective analysis of 46 patients with single-level LDH who underwent either the UBE surgery (n=22) or open microdiscectomy (n=24) between January 2020 and December 2022. Demographic information, perioperative data, and radiographic measurements were reviewed. Pain intensity, patient satisfaction, and quality of life were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 1-week, 3-month, and 12-month follow-ups.

resultsThe mean operative time in the UBE group (86.1±11.4 minutes) was significantly longer than in the open microdiscectomy group (72.3±8.0 minutes, p=0.032). UBE was associated with significantly lower estimated blood loss (54.1±13.7 mL vs. 92.5±11.6 mL, p=0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3.7±1.2 days vs. 6.6±1.4 days, p=0.001). The mean VAS score for back pain at 1 week was significantly better in the UBE group (1.88±0.60 vs. 3.59±0.72, p=0.004). However, both surgical techniques showed similar long-term results regarding disc height, disc angle changes, and patient-reported outcomes.

conclusionsDespite the longer operative time, UBE is associated with reduced estimated blood loss and shorter hospital stays, offering a minimally invasive alternative with early postoperative pain relief. Conversely, open microdiscectomy, the conventional treatment approach, demonstrates comparable efficacy in long-term clinical outcomes despite its more invasive nature. Both methods show similar rates of complications and recurrent disc herniation. UBE is a viable alternative to open microdiscectomy, depending on individual patient considerations and surgical preferences.

Indexed as

Disc degenerationEndoscopicLumbar disc herniationVisual Analog Scale

Identifiers

PMID40222729
PMCPMC12400092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.