Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40241789›Full record

ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2025

Classification of endoscopic spine procedures.

Mazda Farshad, Christoph J Laux, Florian Wanivenhaus, José M Spirig, Jonas Widmer, Michael Kelly, Javier Quillo-Olvera, Jin-Sung Kim, Facundo van Isseldyk, Sohrab Gollogly and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

14 authors.

Mazda FarshadUniversity Spine Center Zurich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Christoph J LauxUniversity Spine Center Zurich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Florian WanivenhausUniversity Spine Center Zurich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
José M SpirigUniversity Spine Center Zurich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Jonas WidmerSpine Biomechanics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Michael KellyHospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, United States.
Javier Quillo-OlveraHospital Spine Center- Neurological Surgery Department, Hospital Angeles Centro Sur, Queretaro City, Mexico.
Jin-Sung KimSpine Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Facundo van IsseldykNational University of Rosario (UNR), Hospital Privado de Rosario (HPR) Rosario, Argentina.
Sohrab GolloglyDepartment of Surgery, Monterey Spine and Joint Center, Monterey, California, United States.
James YueOrthopaedic Surgery, Frank H Netter School of Medicine, CT Orthopaedics, Hamden, Connecticut, United States.
Xuexiao MaAffiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Vincent HagelSpine Center, Asklepios Hospital Lindau, Lindau, Germany.
Frédéric CornazUniversity Spine Center Zurich, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A consensus on grading the complexity of endoscopic spinal procedures is lacking, but urgently needed to guide training, clinical practice, and regulatory concepts. Methods: A 2-dimensional classification system was developed, considering both the technical and morphological parameters contributing to the complexity of endoscopic spine procedures. An international survey with 68 questions - including those on demographic data and surgical volumes, suitability of the proposed 2-dimensional classification system, and categories of techniques and morphologies - was completed by spine surgeons with endoscopic experience. A consensus was defined as a difference >/= 10% between the most frequently given grade and the second most given grade. In cases of no clear consensus (ie, agreement of less than 10%), an additional analysis considering only the responses from surgeons with experience of more than 500 endoscopic spine surgeries was performed. Results: 115 survey entries were received, of which 112 were analyzed. The participating spine surgeons (64% orthopedic surgeons, 35% neurosurgeons, 1% other) originated from 27 countries and have performed an average of 509 endoscopic spine surgeries (55,984 total endoscopic procedures). 85.7% of the survey respondents agreed that the proposed 2-dimensional classification system was indeed appropriate for its particular purpose. Thus, a consensus classification system was born, allowing for grading simple procedures (eg, Ia for lumbar interlaminar discectomy of a soft disc herniation) to complex procedures (eg, IIIc for revision posterior endoscopic cervical central decompression). Conclusions: A consensus of 112 endoscopic spine surgeons from 27 countries facilitated the development of a 2-dimensional classification system outlining the complexity of endoscopic spinal procedures, taking into account both technical aspects and morphological parameters. This classification system categorizes different endoscopic spine procedures and the pathologies they are employed to treat based on complexity, thus guiding the endoscopic spine community in medical training, patient education, and regulatory and reimbursement discussion.

Indexed as

ClassificationComplexityConsensusEndoscopyEndoSpineNomenclature

Identifiers

PMID40241789
PMCPMC12002952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.