Trial reportJoint diseases and related surgery2026
Comparison of unilateral biportal and percutaneous endoscopic discectomy in treating far lateral lumbar disc herniation.
Trial report in Joint diseases and related surgery, 2026. 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.
- Unilateral biportal endoscopy versus percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy for far lateral lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacy of unilateral biportal endoscopy versus endoscopic foraminoplasty decompression for single-level lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to investigate the clinical efficacy of managing far lateral lumbar disc herniation (FLLDH) through two surgical approaches: unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). PATIENTS AND
methodsBetween December 2019 and September 2024, a total of 45 patients (18 males, 27 females; mean age: 59.76±11.82 years; range, 31 to 89 years) who were diagnosed with FLLDH were retrospectively analyzed. Based on the surgical technique used, the patients were randomly divided into two groups: the PELD group (n=17) and the UBE group (n=28). Perioperative indicators, including operative time, postoperative hospital stay and mean fluoroscopy times, were recorded. Pre- and postoperative assessments were conducted at the time of admission and at one, three, and six months after surgery, using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. The modified MacNab criteria were used to assess patient satisfaction.
resultsBoth groups demonstrated a reduction in VAS and ODI scores after surgery (p<0.05). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups at one, three, or six months postoperatively. Operative times were also comparable, with the UBE group mean 97.39±26.78 min and the PELD group 88.18±27.52 min. The postoperative length of hospital stay was similar, with the UBE group staying a mean of 3.93±1.81 days and the PELD group 3.06±1.21 days (p>0.05). The mean fluoroscopy times were significantly lower in the UBE group, with 6.25±1.30 times compared to 16.76±6.02 times in the PELD group (p<0.05).
conclusionOur study results suggest that UBE is a viable alternative to PELD for treating FLLDH, offering comparable clinical outcomes with reduced radiation exposure.
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.