ReviewAdvances and technical standards in neurosurgery2024
Pros and Cons of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.
Review in Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery, 2024. 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.
- A retrospective cohort analysis of roboticJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Biportal endoscopic versus conventional open spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Advances in Metastatic Disease Spinal Oncology: Novel Technology Without Forgetting the Fundamentals of Surgical Treatment.Neurospine · 2025Article
- Changing the Learning Experience and Learning Outcomes of the Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery Based on Applying a Competency Task Analysis.Neurospine · 2025Article
- Augmented Reality in Minimally Invasive Spinal Interventions: Current Use and Future Directions.Cureus · 2025Review
- Evolution, Current Trends, and Latest Advances of Endoscopic Spine Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper reviews current knowledge on minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS). Although it has significant advantages, such as less postoperative pain, short hospital stay, quick return to work, better cosmetics, and less infection rate, there are also disadvantages. The long learning curve, the need for special instruments and types of equipment, high costs, lack of tactile sensation and biplanar imaging, some complications that are hard to treat, and more radiation to the surgeon and surgical team are the disadvantages.Most studies remark that the outcomes of MISS are similar to traditional surgery. Although patients demand it more than surgeons, we predict the broad applications of MISS will replace most of our classical surgical approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38592534What 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.