ArticleBrain & spine2026
Assisted full-endoscopic spine surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: Technical note and learning curve.
Article in Brain & spine, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causes disabling back and radicular pain. Full-endoscopic spine surgery offers minimally invasive decompression, but uniportal and biportal approaches have limitations. Assisted full-endoscopic spine surgery (AFESS) combines the advantages of both techniques to enhance decompression while preserving facet joints. Research question: Can AFESS provide effective decompression with high facet preservation for LSS, and what is the learning curve for this technique? Material and methods: We retrospectively reviewed 33 patients with single-level LSS treated with AFESS, divided into initial (20 cases) and advanced (13 cases) phases. Outcomes assessed at a minimum 6-month follow-up included operative time, facet joint preservation ratio, complications, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain. Results: Operative time decreased significantly from the initial to the advanced phase (mean 99 vs 72 min; p < 0.01). Facet joints were more preserved in the advanced phase (76.2 % vs 68.9 %, p < 0.05). In the initial and advanced phases, mean lumbar VAS improved from 4.2 to 1.1 cm and 2.8 to 0.2 cm, respectively. Radicular VAS improved from 7.7 to 0.8 cm (initial) and 6.9 to 0.9 cm (advanced) (p < 0.01 for all). Two patients (6 %) experienced minor complications in the initial phase, with no permanent deficits. Discussion and conclusion: AFESS is safe and effective, achieving adequate decompression with high facet preservation and significant pain relief in LSS patients. By integrating uniportal and biportal endoscopic approaches, AFESS overcomes limitations of each. The well-defined learning curve suggests it can be efficiently incorporated into clinical practice with minimal 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.