ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Comparative efficacy of one-hole split endoscope versus unilateral biportal endoscopy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the efficacy of one-hole split endoscopy and unilateral biportal endoscopy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy analysis of one-hole split endoscopy surgery versus unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a prevalent spinal disorder affecting 20-40% of the population. This study compared the clinical efficacy of two minimally invasive techniques, one-hole split endoscopy (OSE) and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE), for treating single-level LDH. A retrospective analysis of 217 patients (OSE: 118; UBE: 99) treated between April 2021 and January 2025 demonstrated that while both techniques were effective, OSE offered several advantages. Incision lengths were shorter in the OSE group (2.20 ± 0.33 cm vs. 2.91 ± 0.33 cm; p < 0.001), and fewer intraoperative fluoroscopy sessions were required (2.05 ± 0.21 vs. 2.59 ± 0.59; p < 0.001). Postoperative assessments revealed lower Oswestry Disability Index(ODI) scores (19.40 ± 2.81 vs. 20.87 ± 2.88; p = 0.003) and reduced visual analog scale(VAS) scores for low back pain (1.87 ± 0.68 vs. 2.24 ± 0.58; p = 0.002) in the OSE group at 7 days. The cross-sectional area of the multifidus muscle decreased less in OSE (104.71 ± 36.10) compared to UBE (268.85 ± 40.00; p < 0.001). Complication rates were similar, with no major adverse events such as infections or nerve injuries. The minimally invasive nature of OSE may contribute to improved patient outcomes and satisfaction. Further large-scale, long-term studies are warranted to validate these findings and assess the long-term efficacy of OSE in spinal surgery. Clinical trial number: Not applicable.
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.