ArticleJournal of Korean Neurosurgical Society2026
Feasibility of Recurrent Herniation Surgery with Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy : A Comparison of Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy and Microscopic Discectomy for Recurrent Disc Herniation.
Article in Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society, 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.
- Utility of the scope retractor for adhesiolysis in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar surgery: illustrative cases.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2026Article
- Risk factors and prediction model for recurrence after unilateral dual-channel spinal endoscopy in patients with lumbar disc herniation.BMC 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study, we aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) lumbar discectomy and open lumbar microdiscectomy (MD) for recurrent disc herniation.
methodsNinety patients who underwent discectomy, including 44 and 46 who underwent UBE and MD, respectively, were enrolled. All surgeries were performed between March 2020 and April 2023. Only patients with single-level recurrence were included; patients with multilevel recurrence or unstable disease, as well as those who had undergone surgery less than 6 months prior, were excluded. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores, recurrence rates, and complications were compared between the groups.
resultsThe average follow-up periods were 19.09 and 20.45 months in the UBE revision and MD revision discectomy groups, respectively. The mean bleeding loss and hospital stay were shorter in the UBE group than in the MD group. Postoperative short-term back pain was lower in the UBE group (VAS score, 3.32) than in the MD group (VAS score, 7.89) (p<0.001). Radiating pain showed similar patterns in both groups at all time points. Recurrence was more frequent in the MD group; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance, likely owing to the small sample size (p=0.677). Similarly, incidental durotomy occurred less frequently in the UBE group (6.8% vs. 8.7%), but this difference was not statistically significant.
conclusionBoth UBE and MD could achieve good long-term outcomes; however, UBE revision was superior in terms of short-term back pain, bleeding loss, and length of hospital stay after surgery.
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.