ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2024
A narrative review of endoscopic spine surgery: history, indications, uses, and future directions.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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.
- Evolution of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Contemporary Advances and Future Directions.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
- High Patient Satisfaction with a Digital Care Platform After Thoracolumbar Spine Surgery: A Registry-Based Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Contralateral-Structure-Preserving Endoscopic Resection of Cervical Osteochondroma: A Technical Note.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Endoscopic Spine Surgery.Spine surgery and related research · 2026Article
- Incorporating mixed reality head mounted display technology in biportal endoscopic lumbar surgery: an early feasibility study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Contemporary innovations in spine surgery: balancing technological advancement and cost-effectiveness.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: The concept of endoscopic surgery began in the 1930s and has since undergone numerous advancements in both technology and surgical indications. Its main benefit is providing the opportunity to perform surgery while minimizing disruption to surrounding structures. The purpose of this review is to summarize the history, uses, and future directions for spine endoscopic surgery. Methods: A review of national databases was performing using key terms "endoscopic", "spine" and "surgery" for literature from 1900 to 2023. Studies that aimed to describe the utilities of endoscopic surgeries, associated outcomes, limitations, and future directions were included. Studies that were not in English were excluded. Key Content and Findings: This review includes a brief overview of the history of endoscopic surgery and its current two main approaches, transforaminal and interlaminar approaches. It then summarizes the main indications and utilization of endoscopic surgery in the lumbar, cervical and thoracic spine, as well as expansion in managing spine tumors, infections, and outpatient surgical cases. Conclusions: There are many rising indications and uses for endoscopic spine surgery in nearly every aspect of the spine. Compared to conventional spine surgery, there is early evidence showing endoscopic surgery is associated with less post-operative pain, shorter hospital stays, and possibly quicker recovery times. As current trends in spine surgery move towards minimally invasive techniques, it is anticipated that the use of endoscopic surgery will continue to expand.
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.