ArticleGlobal spine journal2026
Clinical Outcomes and Future Directions of Endoscopic Cervical Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review With Narrative Insights.
Article in Global spine journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Contemporary Advances and Future Directions.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2026Review
- Preliminary Quantitative MRI Assessment After Combined Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Discectomy and Foraminotomy: An Exploratory Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study DesignSystematic Review.ObjectiveEndoscopic cervical spine surgery (ECSS) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to traditional open surgery for certain cervical spine disorders. ECSS may offer potential advantages such as reduced tissue trauma, shorter hospital stays, and accelerated functional recovery. Technological advancements have further enhanced its feasibility. The purpose of this article is to review current ECSS approaches, systematically review ECSS for cervical stenosis, and explore future directions of ECSS.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched systematically until October 20, 2024, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. We searched keywords associated with cervical stenosis, including "endoscopic cervical surgery", "endoscopic cervical discectomy", "endoscopic cervical foraminotomy", "cervical endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression", and "unilateral bilateral endoscopy". We excluded duplicate publications, review articles, preprints, and studies without clinical outcomes or incomplete information. Clinical outcomes and complications were collected.ResultsA total of 12 studies were included with 2 studies being reported twice for having two different ECSS approaches. Each study reported postoperative improvement in clinical outcomes compared to preoperative measurements. The most common complications included dural tears, transient hypesthesia, and CSF leakage.ConclusionECSS is an emerging alternative for treating select cases of symptomatic cervical stenosis and other cervical conditions. Complications differed depending on the approach. Advancements in endoscopic instruments, navigational technologies, and artificial intelligence hold promise for improving preoperative planning, surgical precision, and patient outcomes. The true value of ECSS will require carefully conducted prospective, controlled studies with rigorous assessment of outcomes and complications.
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.