ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2025
Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A French National Survey on Practices, Motivations, and Challenges.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Latent Risk of Visceral Injury in Upper Lumbar Endoscopic Surgery: A Prone-Position Computed Tomography Analysis Identifying Low Body Mass Index as a Predictor of Narrow Safety Margins.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Cost-effective unilateral biportal endoscopic microdiscectomy: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic spine surgery is a minimally invasive approach that offers several advantages over the traditional open approach, including less tissue trauma, faster recovery, and lower rates of complications. However, the learning curve and the requirement of separate equipment limits the acceptability of this technique for many spine surgeons. Using a short survey, the authors sought to report the current status regarding the use of endoscopy among French spine surgeons and to identify the barriers faced by spine surgeons to adopting endoscopy into their practice.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in which a predefined questionnaire was sent as a Google form to 522 members of the Societe Francaise de Chirurgie du Rachisspine. Respondents were asked to respond within 3 months, with reminders sent regularly to nonresponders. Responses were collected and analyzed.
resultsAmong all 123 survey respondents, 39 practiced endoscopy and 84 did not practice endoscopy. Most of the surgeons acquired skills by visiting other surgeons (74.4%) or attending cadaver-based workshops (56.4%). A substantial portion of respondents were in between 1 and 3 years of experience (48.7%) and performed 5 to 10 endoscopic procedures per month(30.8%). Although 92.1% of respondents observed better outcomes in their patients with endoscopy, lack of training (26%) and high equipment cost (13.8%) were the most limiting factors reported by surgeons.
conclusionThe results of this survey contribute to the existing literature and highlight the current trends of endoscopic spine surgery in France. Although the benefits of minimally invasive spine surgery are well documented and were confirmed by surgeons in this survey, lack of training and cost of equipment are major barriers that need to be controlled to expand the adoption of this technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the factors influencing the adoption of endoscopic spine surgery in France provides valuable insights for surgeons and educators. By identifying key barriers and motivations, this study may help guide strategies for improving training, accessibility, and implementation of endoscopic techniques in spinal surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
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.