ArticleScientific reports2025
Clinical comparison of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar vs. unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy via a Modified Inferolateral Margin of the L5 Pedicle Projection for L5/S1 Central Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Analysis of risk factors for deep vein thrombosis after lumbar endoscopic single-segment decompression without 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 · 2026Article
- Comparing Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy Versus Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy vs. percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar approach in lumbar disc herniation: A meta-analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a clinical predictive model for the risk of recurrence after unilateral biportal endoscopic diskectomy.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Exploratory comparisons of unilateral and bilateral fixation in unilateral biportal endoscopic extreme transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma injection with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the comparative effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) in managing lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Clinical data from 146 LDH patients treated surgically at the First Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (January 2020-January 2023) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into UBED (n = 84) and PELD (n = 62) groups. Key metrics such as surgical time, incision length, fluoroscopy frequency, blood loss, hospital stay, complications, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were compared. The average age of patients in the UBED group was 53.46 ± 15.60 years, whereas the average age of patients in the PELD group was 55.61 ± 15.52 years (P = 0.411). Their BMI was 24.17 ± 2.94 and 23.90 ± 2.61, respectively (P = 0.558). The duration of symptoms was 10.52 ± 5.23 months in the UBED group and 11.66 ± 6.02 months in the PELD group (P = 0.225). The surgical time was 66.67 ± 15.83 min in the UBED group and 69.11 ± 25.84 min in the PELD group (P = 0.481). Intraoperative blood loss was 76.81 ± 26.74 ml in the UBED group and 69.44 ± 25.74 ml in the PELD group (P = 0.096). The hospital stay was 5.39 ± 1.83 days in the UBED group and 5.11 ± 3.42 days in the PELD group (P = 0.525). The average follow-up time was 16.46 ± 4.52 months in the UBED group and 15.71 ± 3.83 months in the PELD group (P = 0.289). Compared with those before the operation, the VAS score, JOA score, and ODI of both groups significantly improved on the first day postoperatively, at 3 months, and at 6 months. No significant intergroup differences were noted in terms of intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, or postoperative functional scores. Both groups showed marked postoperative improvements in functional outcomes. The postoperative satisfaction rates of patients in the UBED group and PELD group were 91.7% and 87.1%, respectively. Notably, the UBED group demonstrated a reduced fluoroscopy frequency and significantly lower rates of complications and recurrence. In terms of imaging, the disc Height of the two groups of patients showed a slight decrease after surgery, whereas the spinal canal area increased compared to before surgery, and there was no difference between the groups. UBED and PELD effectively alleviate LDH symptoms, but UBED has advantages in reducing fluoroscopy dependence, complications, and recurrence.
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.