ArticleAsian spine journal2025
A systematic review of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery with interbody fusion.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technical considerations for time-efficient four-level biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion in a frail elderly patient with severe lumbar deformity: a case report.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Two-Level Fusion: Hemodynamic Profiles and Early Clinical Outcomes Compared with Tubular MIS and Open Approaches.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Total and Hidden Blood Loss in Biportal Endoscopic Versus Tubular-Based Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026Article
- 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
- Comparison between large interbody cage versus two smaller interbody cages in unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal interbody fusion.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
- Clinical and radiologic outcomes of expandable versus static cages in biportal endoscopic TLIF: focus on endplate injury and subsidence.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Response to the letter to the editor: Inconsistencies in obesity criteria: implications for systematic reviews on endoscopic spine surgery.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Advancements in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a narrative review.European journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Outcomes of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Surgery for Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc: A Single-center Study.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- A preliminary feasibility study of a tough hydrogel as a nucleus pulposus substitute for degenerative disc disease.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Two-Year Radiological Fusion Outcomes Following Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Banana-Shaped Interbody Cages.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis With Stenosis.Neurospine · 2025Article
- Editorial comment for the special issue on endoscopic spine surgery.Asian spine journal · 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
Abstract
Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) with interbody fusion is a relatively novel minimally invasive technique that was developed to reduce soft tissue trauma and intraoperative blood loss and shorten recovery time while achieving comparable clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative diseases. Despite the growing interest in BESS, a comprehensive analysis of its effectiveness, complication rates, and long-term outcomes remains lacking. This systematic review evaluated the clinical outcomes, surgical efficacy, and complication rates of BESS with interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases. Recent literature on endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion was included to expand the scope and gain new perspectives, thereby, providing a comparative analysis that highlighted the advantages, limitations, and emerging trends in minimally invasive spine surgery. This review synthesized current evidence to guide future research and clinical applications. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and using a combination of MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and relevant keywords, PubMed/Medline and Scopus databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 2000 and September 2024. The studies were assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions) tool to determine the risk of bias. From the 12 studies that provided clinical evidence, the data extracted were patient demographics; operative time; blood loss; clinical outcomes, such as Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and fusion rates; and complications. The mean operative time ranged from 98 to 206 minutes, with fusion rates between 70% and 95%. Most studies reported significant improvements in VAS scores for back and leg pain and ODI scores. Complications, including dural tears (2.9%-6.4%) and hematomas (1.4%-4.3%), were infrequent but notable. BESS with interbody fusion demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes, high fusion rates, and few complications. Although these results are promising, more randomized controlled trials and long-term studies are required to confirm the broader applicability, particularly in more complex or multilevel spinal pathologies.
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.