Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40621378›Full record

ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025

Comparison of endoscopic and non-endoscopic lumbar decompression outcomes using ACS-NSQIP database 2017-2022.

Adam J Ward, Samuel Ezeonu, Tina Raman, Charla Fischer, Themistocles S Protopsaltis, Yong H Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Endoscopic spine surgery: a bibliometric and citation analysis of the most influential articles and authors across 19 spine journals (1976-2025).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
    Review
  3. Review
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.

Adam J WardDivision of Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Samuel EzeonuDivision of Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Tina RamanDivision of Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Charla FischerDivision of Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Themistocles S ProtopsaltisDivision of Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Yong H KimDivision of Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Recently, spine surgeons have begun adapting endoscopy to perform decompressive laminectomy which has been reported to provide smaller incisions and potentially lower risk of complications compared to traditional techniques. This study aimed to compare patient characteristics and adverse outcomes between patients undergoing endoscopic Methods: Using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2017 to 2022, Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code of 63030 or 62380 were used to filter the dataset between open/tubular retractor-based and endoscopic single-level lumbar decompression cases, respectively. Overall, as collected, the endoscopic group consisted of 336 patients and the non-endoscopic group had 55,111 patients. The groups were compared to evaluate the patient characteristics and adverse events within 30 days after their operation. Outcome measures compared were operative time, length of stay (days), adverse outcomes [superficial infection, deep infection, organ/space infection, wound dehiscence, pneumonia, unplanned intubation, pulmonary embolism, ventilator >48 hours, progressive renal insufficiency, acute renal failure, urinary tract infection, stroke/cerebrovascular accident (CVA) accident, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, blood transfusion, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), sepsis, and septic shock], 30-day readmission, return to operating room (OR). Results: After propensity score adjusting for age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), endoscopic patients had less total adverse outcomes than open (1.2% Conclusions: Patients who underwent endoscopic lumbar decompression demonstrated a significantly lower rate of total adverse events and significantly lower rate of blood transfusions compared to their counterparts. This data from the ACS-NSQIP supports the reported benefits of endoscopic technique in the current literature. As endoscopic surgery becomes more widely utilized throughout the United States, more data will become available for further studies.

Indexed as

Endoscopylaminectomyminimally invasive (MIS)National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP)outcomes

Identifiers

PMID40621378
PMCPMC12226183

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.