ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Comparison between unilateral biportal endoscopic and percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical keyhole surgery for patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy.
Article in Frontiers in 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study design: The present study was retrospective in design. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) and percutaneous posterior endoscopic cervical (PE) keyhole foraminotomy surgeries for patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy (CSR). Background data: A total of 123 eligible patients with single-level cervical spine disc herniation treated with UBE or PE at our hospital between April 2020 and April 2023 were included. Patients were divided into two groups according to operation procedure. There were 28 men and 32 women in the UBE group with a mean age of 55.0 ± 9.0 years, while there were 29 men and 34 women in the PE group with a mean age of 57.3 ± 6.9 years. Method: Data were collected from medical records. The study evaluated baseline characteristics, operation-related parameters (hospital stay, cost, and blood loss), clinical outcomes (Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] and Neck Disability Index [NDI]), and perioperative data (operation time, cost, surgery level, and pain level). MacNab criteria grade and complications were evaluated and compared. Result: There were no significant differences in age, gender, pain level, operation level, preoperative VAS, NDI, and C2/7 Cobb angle between the two groups ( Conclusion: UBE may provide better clinical outcomes than PE in patients with CSR. More studies need to be conducted to further confirm the efficacy of UBE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.