ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Comparison of clinical efficacy and minimal invasiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in the treatment of calcified lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and minimal invasiveness of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) and unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) in the treatment of calcified lumbar disc herniation (CLDH), to provide evidence for spinal surgeons to select the most appropriate surgical method for individual patients.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the data of 49 CLDH patients who underwent PELD or UBE in our hospital from January 2016 to August 2024, including 20 who underwent PELD and 29 who underwent UBE. The demographic, clinical, and perioperative data of the two groups of patients were collected and analyzed.
resultsAll surgeries were completed successfully, with significant improvement in clinical symptoms observed in both groups postoperatively. The mean fluoroscopy frequency was 5.52 times higher in the PELD group than in the UBE group. The average operative time in the PELD group was 9.21 min shorter than in the UBE group. The mean preoperative-to-postoperative difference in hemoglobin level was 3.65 g/L lower in the PELD group than in the UBE group. The mean preservation rate of the lumbar facet joints was 9.10% higher in the PELD group than in the UBE group. These differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The excellent-to-good rate was 90.00% in the PELD group and 93.10% in the UBE group. Additionally, two patients in the PELD group experienced complications, and two patients had recurrence at 12 months postoperatively, with no severe outcomes. No complications or postoperative recurrences were observed in the UBE group.
conclusionsPELD and UBE are both effective minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of CLDH. The short-term clinical efficacy of the two methods is similar; PELD is characterized by shorter operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and less damage to facet joints. The advantages of UBE are more sufficient surgical field exposure and more flexible operation, though it may require a wider range of facet joint resection. Clinical decision-making should be based on the patient's clinical symptoms, imaging features, and the surgeon's procedural expertise to formulate an individualized surgical plan.
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.