ArticleBMC surgery2026
Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopy and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for highly downward-migrated lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the clinical efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) versus percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy (PEID) in the treatment of highly downward-migrated lumbar disc herniation (HDM-LDH).
methodA retrospective study included 61 patients with HDM-LDH, comprising 27 in the UBE group and 34 in the PEID group. All patients followed up for 12 months. Compare differences in general information between the two groups. By analysing and comparing perioperative indicators, MacNab excellent/good rate, complication, and clinical and radiographic outcomes between the two groups.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups in general information (P > 0.05). The UBE group had a shorter operation time (OT), greater intraoperative blood loss (IBL) and longer postoperative hospital stay (PHS) than the PEID group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference of MacNab and complications between the two groups (P > 0.05). The visual analogue scale (VAS) - Back at 3 days postoperative in the UBE group was higher than PEID group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in VAS-Leg and Oswestry disability index scores (P>0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in intervertebral disc height (P>0.05). The cross-sectional area of the spinal canal (CASC) and cross-sectional area of the dural sac (CADS) in the UBE group were more significant than PEID group postoperative, and the cross-sectional area of the paraspinal muscles (CAPM) in the UBE group decreased more than PEID group postoperative (P < 0.05). The UBE group had a lower residual area of nucleus pulposus (RANP), a higher area of laminectomy (AL) and a lower preservation rate of facet joints (PRFJ) compared to the PEID group (P < 0.05).
conclusionUBE yields higher AL, lower PRFJ, larger IBL and longer PHS compared with PEID. It also leads to more severe short-term postoperative low back pain and paraspinal muscle injury. Nevertheless, UBE possesses better surgical efficiency and shorter OT. It can better restore CASC and CADS, and reduce RANP simultaneously. In clinical practice, the surgical approach for HDM-LDH should be selected according to surgeon experience and individualized treatment strategies.
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.