ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2026
Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy vs. percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar approach in lumbar disc herniation: A meta-analysis.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2026. 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.
- Review
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
Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common cause of lower back and radicular pain. Unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) are two prevalent minimally invasive techniques, yet their comparative efficacy and safety remain debated. Within the present meta-analysis, the aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of UBE and PEID in treating LDH. A systematic literature search was conducted using Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to June 10, 2025, to identify comparative studies evaluating UBE and PEID for single-level LDH. Extracted data included operative time, blood loss, fluoroscopy frequency, hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) score for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), MacNab excellent/good rate and complication rate. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of ten studies involving 1,003 patients was included. PEID demonstrated advantages in operative time [mean difference (MD)=7.82 min; P=0.004], blood loss (MD=25.5 ml; P=0.01) and hospital stay (MD=0.56 days; P=0.007). UBE demonstrated ODI improvement at 1 (MD=-0.93; P=0.01) and 6 months (MD=-0.85; P=0.01). No significant differences were observed in VAS scores for back and leg pain, MacNab excellent/good rate, fluoroscopy frequency or complication rates. UBE demonstrated improved postoperative functional recovery, instrument maneuverability and visualization, whereas PEID offered shorter operative time, reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stays. The choice of surgical approach should consider these outcome trade-offs along with patient characteristics and surgeon expertise.
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.