ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025
BLEED-LESS: a scoping review on blood loss elimination in endoscopic decompression-lessons and literature on endoscopic spine surgery.
Review 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 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.
- Anatomy and Surgical Implications of the Lumbar Epidural Venous Plexus: A Risk Zone Framework.Cureus · 2026Review
- Endoscope-assisted prone lateral retropleural 360° reconstruction of thoracic pathological fracture in metastatic melanoma: a case report and technical note.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Bioorthogonally Cross-Linked Injectable PEG Hydrogel with Robust Hemostatic and Antibacterial Properties.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Considerations on the safety of topical hemostatic irrigation in "BLEED-LESS: a scoping review on blood loss elimination in endoscopic decompression".Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic spine surgery has emerged as a significant advancement in minimally invasive spinal procedures, with advantages including reduced tissue trauma, faster recovery, and improved patient outcomes. A critical component of these surgeries is effective haemostasis, essential for maintaining visual clarity, ensuring surgical efficiency, and minimising perioperative complications. A scoping review was conducted to examine current clinical practices and research on haemostasis in endoscopic spine surgery, with the aim of synthesising existing knowledge into a practical framework to guide surgeons in managing intraoperative bleeding in endoscopic spine surgery. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library, guided by the Population-Concept-Context (PCC) framework. Studies were included if they reported on techniques to achieve haemostasis in endoscopic spine procedures. Data were extracted on study design, surgical technique, haemostatic tools or agents used, and bleeding-related outcomes. Results: The review identified various haemostatic methods including bipolar and radiofrequency cautery, tranexamic acid, gelatin-thrombin matrix sealants, bone wax, irrigation pressure modulation, and absorbable hemostatic agents. The review highlights that no single haemostatic method can be applied to all cases of endoscopic spine surgery. Instead, a multimodal approach is necessary to effectively achieve haemostasis. Based on this synthesis, we propose the FIBRE protocol, encompassing fluid management, initial exposure, bone bleeding control, red-out scenarios, and extra considerations, as a practical framework for managing haemostasis. Conclusions: The proposed FIBRE protocol is a framework for controlling bleeding, improving visualisation, and enhancing surgical outcomes. By integrating these practices, surgeons can refine their techniques and contribute to enhanced patient outcomes in minimally invasive 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.