ArticleCureus2025
Endoscope-Assisted Spine Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Applications and a Lateral Interbody Fusion Case Illustration.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic spine surgery offers a minimally invasive alternative to traditional microsurgical techniques across a spectrum of pathologies, namely discectomy, interbody fusion, and laminectomy, by leveraging small incisions, reduced tissue disruption, and direct visualization. Endoscopic discectomy yields shorter operative times, lower infection rates, and comparable pain and functional outcomes versus open microdiscectomy. Similarly, endoscopic laminectomy for lumbar stenosis provides equivalent decompression with less postoperative pain and faster mobilization than microscopic or open approaches. In the realm of interbody fusion, endoscopic techniques (including transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, lateral lumbar interbody fusion, and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) variants) achieve fusion rates and radiographic corrections on par with minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques, while further minimizing blood loss, length of stay, and anesthesia exposure. We present a 67-year-old male patient with prior T10-11 and T11-12 fusions, hemilaminectomies, and dorsal column stimulator hardware who developed adjacent-segment L3-4 stenosis. An endoscopic XLIF was performed under fluoroscopic and neuromonitoring guidance. The patient experienced an uncomplicated procedure with immediate preservation of neurologic function and postoperative imaging confirming ideal cage placement and alignment. Endoscopic spine surgery, exemplified by this XLIF case, combines the benefits of MIS with an expanded view of the surgical field. With proper patient selection and adherence to evolving technical guidelines, these techniques continue to offer promising outcomes, reinforcing their role as a transformative modality in modern spine surgery.
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.