ArticleNeurospine2024
Safety Profile of Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery Compared to Conventional Microscopic Approach: A Pooled Analysis of 2 Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Neurospine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of paraspinal muscle changes after biportal endoscopic and microscopic lumbar discectomy or decompression.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 · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Direct endoscopic visualization improves endplate preparation in lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative study of biportal endoscopic and conventional techniques.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 · 2026Article
- O-Arm Navigation Enhances Facet Preservation Without Compromising Clinical Outcomes in UBE Decompression for Radiographically Stable Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Single-Center Comparative Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Asymptomatic multisegmental epidural hematoma following unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of Complication Management During Uniportal and Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Dural Tear and Bleeding.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Improvement in low back pain following endoscopic decompression for spinal stenosis.Brain & spine · 2026Article
- O-arm navigation-based transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy for upper lumbar disc herniation: an innovative preliminary study.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Far-Lateral Transforaminal Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Upper Lumbar Disc Herniations.Neurospine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events.
methodsWe pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20-80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period.
resultsThe overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%).
conclusionBESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.
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.