Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40195641›Full record

ArticleAsian spine journal2025

A systematic review of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery with interbody fusion.

Wongthawat Liawrungrueang, Ho-Jin Lee, Sang Bum Kim, Sang-Min Park, Watcharaporn Cholamjiak, Hyun-Jin Park

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2026
    Article
  5. 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 · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Wongthawat LiawrungrueangDepartment of Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of Phayao, Phayao, Thailand.
Ho-Jin LeeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea.
Sang Bum KimDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea.
Sang-Min ParkSpine Center and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
Watcharaporn CholamjiakDepartment of Mathematics, School of Science, University of Phayao, Phayao, Thailand.
Hyun-Jin ParkDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

Thailand Science Research and Innovation FundUniversity of Phayao
6 · The paper itself

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

DegenerationEndoscopyLumbar vertebraeMinimally invasive surgerySpinal fusion

Identifiers

PMID40195641
PMCPMC12061607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.