ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
The usefulness and utilisation of Lu's retractor for unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Utility of the scope retractor for adhesiolysis in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar surgery: illustrative cases.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2026Article
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
backgroundA novel endoscopic instrument, Lu's retractor, was developed to address the recurrent issue of limited visualisation during unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spinal surgery. Engineered to optimize the surgical field by mitigating soft tissue interference, this device aims to enhance operative precision and efficiency.
methodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study analyzed 90 consecutive patients who underwent single-level lumbar discectomy via the UBE technique between June 2023 and June 2024. Based on the type of retractor utilised, patients were categorized into three groups: traditional retractor-assisted UBE discectomy (T-UBE), metal retractor-assisted UBE discectomy (M-UBE), and Lu's retractor-assisted UBE discectomy (Lu-UBE). Perioperative parameters-including operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, and complication incidence-along with clinical outcomes, were systematically recorded and compared to assess the relative efficacy of each retractor.
resultsThe Lu-UBE group exhibited significantly reduced hospital stays and intraoperative haemorrhage compared to the T-UBE and M-UBE cohorts. Furthermore, this group reported lower numerical rating scale (NRS) scores for both lumbar and radicular pain, alongside decreased Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Final follow-up assessments indicated superior Macnab grades, denoting improved functional recovery, and a lower incidence of postoperative complications.
conclusionLu's retractor offers notable advantages over conventional and metal retractors in lumbar UBE discectomy by enhancing intraoperative visualization and minimizing complications. These findings support its potential utility as an effective alternative in minimally invasive spinal procedures.
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.