Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37074492›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

Economic comparisons of endoscopic spine surgery: a systematic review.

Jeff D Golan, Lior M Elkaim, Qais Alrashidi, Miltiadis Georgiopoulos, Oliver Lasry

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Endoscopic spine surgery.Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Lumbar Disc Herniation: What's New in Surgical Treatment.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Early complication rates of uniportal Full-Endoscopic lumbar discectomy in 539 patients: a retrospective multicentre study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Observational
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Classification of endoscopic spine procedures.North American Spine Society journal · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Impact of postoperative cauda equina clumping on recovery after biportal endoscopic decompression for severe lumbar stenosis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  15. The evolution and promise of endoscopic spine surgery.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Advances and Challenges of Endoscopic Spine Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jeff D GolanDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. jeff.golan@mcgill.ca.
Lior M ElkaimDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Qais AlrashidiDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Miltiadis GeorgiopoulosDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Oliver LasryDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Jewish General Hospital · CAMcGill University · CAMcGill University Health Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFull-endoscopic techniques are minimally invasive surgery alternatives to traditional spinal surgery. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the costs of these techniques compared to traditional approaches.

methodsA systematic review of the literature was performed for economic evaluations that compare endoscopic decompressions of the lumbar spine for stenosis or disc herniation to open or microsurgical decompressions. The search was performed in the following databases: Medline, Embase Classic, Embase, and Central Cochrane library, from January 1, 2005, to October 22, 2022. The included studies were each evaluated according to a formal assessment checklist to evaluate the quality of economic evaluations based on 35 criteria.

resultA total of 1153 studies were identified, with 9 articles included in the final analysis. In evaluating the quality of economic evaluations, the study with the fewest met criteria scored 9/35 and the study with the most met criteria scored 28/35. Only 3 studies completed cost-effectiveness analyses. Surgical procedure duration varied between studies, but hospital length of stays were consistently shorter with endoscopy. While endoscopy was more frequently associated with higher operating costs, studies that measured healthcare and societal costs found endoscopy to be advantageous.

conclusionEndoscopic spine surgery was found to be cost-effective in treating patients with lumbar stenosis and disc herniation when compared to standard microscopic approaches from a societal perspective. More well-designed economic evaluations investigating the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic spine procedures are needed to further support these findings.

Indexed as

Intervertebral Disc DisplacementConstriction, PathologicCost-Benefit AnalysisEndoscopyHumansLumbar VertebraeMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresCost-effectivenessEndoscopicMISSpine surgery

Identifiers

PMID37074492
OpenAlexW4366352314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.