ArticleBMC surgery2025
Comparative study of the learning curves for percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopy techniques.
Article in BMC surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Minimally invasive endoscopic treatment of cervical radiculopathy: a comparative study of three surgical channel approaches.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- Validation of the VIEW score: a novel intraoperative grading scale for visualization in endoscopic spine surgery.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
- Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy vs. percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar approach in lumbar disc herniation: A meta-analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation at different segments.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 · 2025Article
- Research advances in unilateral endoscopic spinal surgery for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive spinal surgery techniques, such as Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Lumbar Discectomy (PEID) and Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE), have been developed to reduce surgical morbidity and enhance patient recovery. Although both techniques demonstrate promising clinical outcomes, the learning curves required for surgeons to achieve proficiency with these methods remain unclear.
objectiveTo compare the learning curves of PEID and UBE in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 173 patients who underwent either PEID (n = 94) or UBE (n = 79), performed by two independent surgeons between January 2020 and January 2022. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years, diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation, and had no previous spinal surgeries at the affected level. Metrics analyzed included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, complication rates, and clinical outcomes, assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.
resultsThe PEID group demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (99.96 ± 34.74 min vs. 116.52 ± 47.20 min, P < 0.05) and less blood loss (20.85 ± 11.06 ml vs. 80.19 ± 22.81 ml, P < 0.01) compared to the UBE group. Both techniques showed significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores postoperatively, with no significant differences between the groups at any follow-up points. Learning curve analysis revealed that operative times for PEID stabilized at approximately 70 min after about 40 cases, while UBE stabilized at around 65 min after approximately 35 cases. Complication rates were low, and patient satisfaction was high in both groups. According to the Modified MacNab criteria, 83% of patients in the PEID group and 79.7% in the UBE group achieved excellent outcomes, while only 5.3% and 3.8% of patients experienced fair or poor outcomes in the PEID and UBE groups, respectively.
conclusionBoth PEID and UBE are effective minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, offering comparable clinical outcomes and low complication rates. However, PEID is associated with shorter operative times and reduced intraoperative blood loss. Understanding the learning curves of these techniques is crucial for surgeons to improve proficiency and optimize patient outcomes.
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.