ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for single-level cervical radiculopathy: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is widely used for cervical radiculopathy but may limit segmental motion. Unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative; however, comparative evidence remains limited. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of UBE and ACDF in patients with single-level cervical radiculopathy, with a particular focus on early recovery and motion preservation. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included patients with single-level cervical radiculopathy treated with UBE or ACDF between February 2020 and November 2024. Patients with multilevel disease, prior cervical surgery, or incomplete follow-up were excluded. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed to reduce selection bias, yielding 38 patients in each group. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and cervical range of motion (ROM) at postoperative 5 days, 3 months, and 12 months. Perioperative parameters were also analyzed. Results: Baseline characteristics were well-balanced after matching. Both groups exhibited significant postoperative improvement. The UBE group showed significantly lower VAS and NDI scores in the early postoperative period (5 days: VAS 2.39±0.86 Conclusions: UBE and ACDF achieved comparable pain relief and functional recovery. UBE may offer advantages in motion preservation and earlier return to work. However, due to the retrospective design, these findings require confirmation in prospective randomized studies.
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.