ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2025
Classification of endoscopic spine procedures.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interlaminar Contralateral Endoscopic Foraminotomy Reduces Postoperative Dysesthesia in Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Deformity: A Multicenter Comparative Cohort Study.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Enhancing Precision in Lumbar Spine Surgery Through Spinal Endoscopy: A Narrative Review with Expert Opinion.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Aligning perspectives: towards a standardized concept of "complexity" in thyroid surgery. An international web-based survey.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Spine endoscopic surgery establishment for disc disease (Neurocore-SENSED): an open and decentralized consensus.Brain & spine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.