ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025
Comparison of clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation at different segments.
Article in 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, 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.
- Letter to the Editor concerning "Comparison of clinical efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation at different segments" by Qipeng Gao, et al. (Eur Spine J [2025]: doi: 1007/s00586-025-09414-7.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
- Interpretable prediction of prolonged length of stay for patients undergoing lumbar disc herniation surgery based on machine learning and SHAP.BMC health services research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) at L3-S1 levels, aiming to identify the optimal segment-specific approach given anatomical variations between laminae.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 210 LDH patients was conducted (UBED: n = 102 [L3/4 = 22, L4/5 = 42, L5/S1 = 38]; PEID: n = 108 [L3/4 = 16, L4/5 = 47, L5/S1 = 45]). Both groups had a follow-up period of more than six months. Assessed parameters included: intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hemoglobin loss, surgical duration, incision length, drainage volume, hospital stay, costs, VAS (back/leg pain at 3d/1m/6m), ODI, and modified MacNab criteria.
resultsBoth groups showed significant postoperative improvement in VAS and ODI scores. Overall, UBED had larger incisions, greater drainage volume, higher costs, and longer hospital stays than PEID. For L4/5 and L5/S1 LDH, UBED resulted in more intraoperative blood loss, greater hemoglobin loss, and longer surgical duration. Conversely, for L3/4 LDH, UBED had significantly shorter surgical time. No significant differences existed in 6-months postoperative complications or MacNab scores.
conclusionsUBED and PEID both achieve good clinical outcomes. PEID demonstrates significant advantages for L4/5 and L5/S1 LDH, offering less bleeding and shorter surgical time. UBED is advantageous for L3/4 LDH due to shorter surgical duration. PEID also allows omission of drainage tubes due to minimal postoperative drainage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41057594What 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.