Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37587257›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 Society2024

Complications in endoscopic spine surgery: a systematic review.

Domenico Compagnone, Filippo Mandelli, Matteo Ponzo, Francesco Langella, Riccardo Cecchinato, Marco Damilano, Andrea Redaelli, Giuseppe Maria Peretti, Daniele Vanni, Pedro Berjano

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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Learning curve insights in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) spinal procedures: proficiency cutoffs and the impact on efficiency and complications.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
    Pooled it
  2. Impact of arthroscopic experience on the learning curve in interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy: a single-center prospective cohort study of 240 patients.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
  3. Midline delta double-door decompression (MDDD), a novel strategy for thoracic ossification of the ligamentum flavum via uni-portal noncoaxial spinal endoscopic surgery (UNSES): a case series.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
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Anesthetic complications of extensive spinal nerve block and total spinal anesthesia during percutaneous endoscopic spinal surgery under local anesthesia.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
    Article
  8. Endoscopic spine surgery.Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013) · 2026
    Review
  9. 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
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Domenico CompagnoneIRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi Sant'Ambrogio, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5411-9400
Filippo MandelliDepartment of Spine Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2894-652X
Matteo PonzoIRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi Sant'Ambrogio, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2814-2786
Francesco LangellaIRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi Sant'Ambrogio, Milan, Italy. francesco.langella.md@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8639-8480
Riccardo CecchinatoIRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi Sant'Ambrogio, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3570-8178
Marco DamilanoIRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi Sant'Ambrogio, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5065-0309
Andrea RedaelliIRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi Sant'Ambrogio, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2907-6263
Giuseppe Maria PerettiIRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi Sant'Ambrogio, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9341-7187
Daniele VanniIRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi Sant'Ambrogio, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0753-6030
Pedro BerjanoIRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi Sant'Ambrogio, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1891-3719

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis systematic review aims to investigate the complication rate of endoscopic spine surgeries, stratifying them by technique, district and kind of procedure performed.

methodsThis study was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Register, OTseeker and ScienceDirect database. Types of studies included were observational studies (cohort studies, case-control studies and case series) and randomised or quasi-randomised clinical with human subjects. No restrictions on publication year were applied. Repeated articles, reviews, expert's comments, congress abstracts, technical notes and articles not in English were excluded. Several data were extracted from the articles. In particular, data of perioperative (≤ 3 months) and late (> 3 months) complications were collected and grouped according to: (1) surgical technique [uniportal full-endoscopic spine surgery (UESS) or unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery (UBESS)]; (2) spinal district treated [cervical, thoracic or lumbar] and (3) type of procedure [discectomy/decompression or fusion]. Complication analysis was performed in subgroups with at least 100 patients to have clinically meaningful statistical validity.

resultsA total of 117 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of the 117 records included, 95 focused their research on UESS (14 LOE V, 33 LOE IV, 43 LOE III and five LOE II) and 23 on UBESS (three LOE V, eight LOE IV, 10 LOE III and two LOE II). A total of 20,020 patients were extracted to investigate the incidence of different perioperative and late complications, 10,405 for UESS and 9615 for UBESS.

conclusionThe present study summarises the complications reported in the literature for spinal endoscopic procedures. On the one hand, the most relevant described were perioperative complications (transient neurological deficit, dural tear and dysesthesia) that are especially meaningful for endoscopic discectomy and decompression. On the other hand, late complications, such as mechanical implant failure, are more common in endoscopic interbody fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Indexed as

DiskectomyEndoscopySpineDatabases, FactualHumansLumbosacral RegionEndoscopic surgeryIncidence of complicationSpine surgerySystematic review

Identifiers

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.