ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Clinical comparison of three-dimensional exoscope vs. operative microscope in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A retrospective case-control study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Education and training in microsurgery: a current global overview.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Exoscope-Assisted Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review From Basic to Complex Pathologies.Cureus · 2025Review
- Exoscope-assisted spine surgery: Current applications and future directions-A short review.World neurosurgery: X · 2025Review
- Challenges in Contemporary Spine Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of Surgical, Technological, and Patient-Specific Issues.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Exoscope-assisted spine surgery: Current applications and future directions.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Review
- 3D Exoscopes in Experimental Microanastomosis: A Comparison of Different Systems.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Here, we sought to determine the safety and feasibility of three-dimensional exoscope (3D EX). We compared data on surgery, complications, postoperative drainage, hematology, and clinical outcomes in the group that underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using an operative microscope (OM) relative to those treated using 3D EX. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed records on 74 patients who underwent one- or two-level TLIF from August 2019 to October 2020. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare pre- and post-operative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and oswestry disability index (ODI). We used analysis of covariance to compare pre- and post-operative erythrocyte count (RBC), hemoglobin (Hb), and hematocrit (Hct). Independent sample t-tests was used to compare postoperative drainage volume, total blood loss (TBL), visible blood loss (VBL) and hidden blood loss (HBL). Results: There were no significant differences in VAS and ODI scores between the two groups at all time points (all Conclusion: Our data show that 3D EX is a suitable alternative to OM in TLIF. Relative to OM, 3D EX has important strengths in reducing perioperative bleeding in two-level TLIF.
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.