ArticleJournal of pain research2025
Assessment of Safety and Efficacy of Full-Endoscopic Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel for Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy.
Article in Journal of pain 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.
- Data Inconsistency, Cost Paradox, and Learning Curve Bias: Critical Concerns Regarding the EUBS Study [Letter].Journal of pain research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the endoscopic ultrasonic bone scalpel (EUBS) in percutaneous endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 41 patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR) who underwent surgical treatment and were followed up at Xuzhou Central Hospital between January 2019 and June 2023. Among them, 22 patients were treated using EUBS and 19 using a high-speed drill (HSD). The two groups were compared in terms of operative time, bone fenestration time, frequency of surgical field blurring, length of hospital stay, complication rate, postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, C2-7 Cobb angle, and intervertebral disc height at the operative level. Results: The follow-up period ranged from 16 to 36 months. The bone fenestration time in the EUBS group was significantly shorter than that in the HSD group (P < 0.05), although no significant differences were observed in total operative time or frequency of surgical field blurring. The postoperative complication rate in the EUBS group was 0%, which was not statistically different from the 5.26% observed in the HSD group. Both groups showed significant improvements in VAS and JOA scores from three months post-surgery to final follow-up, with no significant differences between the groups. Similarly, no significant intergroup differences were found in C2-7 Cobb angle or intervertebral disc height at any time point. Conclusion: The application of EUBS in PECD is safe and effective for treating CSR. It can reduce bone fenestration time and improve surgical efficiency.
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.