ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Endoscopic versus open lumbar decompression: a retrospective cohort study of 31,000 patients with 90-day follow-up.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- CYP2D6 Metabolizer Phenotype and New Persistent Opioid Use After Spine Surgery.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Tubular vs. Open Laminectomy for Pure Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Markov State-Transition Analysis.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Research priorities in Spine Deformity: a machine learning-based topic analysis of the journal's first decade (2013-2026).Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Neuroimmune Phenotyping as the Next Frontier in Chronic Pain Medicine for Musculoskeletal Back Pain.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Large Language Models in Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review of Clinical Efficacy, Technical Integration, and Ethical Paradigms.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Ordinal Deep Learning for Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis Grading on Sagittal MRI.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Impact of Immunosuppression Type on 30-Day Postoperative Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Retrospective National Cohort Study of 66,162 Patients.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Deep Learning-Based Multi-Class Pediatric Wrist Fracture Subtype Classification: A Pilot Study Comparing Convolutional Neural Network Architectures.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Endoscopic and percutaneous minimally invasive repair of pars interarticularis defects: a systematic review of clinical outcomes.Spine deformity · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic lumbar decompression has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to open decompression for degenerative lumbar disease. Although prior work suggests potential recovery benefits, large-scale data comparing safety outcomes remain limited. This study compared 90-day complications, reoperation, and healthcare utilization between endoscopic and open lumbar decompression using a national database. We performed a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX U.S. Research Network. Adults undergoing lumbar decompression were identified using procedure codes for percutaneous endoscopic decompression or discectomy versus conventional open decompression. Primary outcomes were incidental durotomy, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak or pseudomeningocele, and unplanned reoperation. Secondary outcomes included emergency department revisit, readmission, meningitis, wound disruption, venous thromboembolism, and myocardial infarction. Propensity score matching was performed 1:1 using demographic and clinical covariates. After matching, 31,408 patients were included in each cohort. Rates of incidental durotomy were similar between endoscopic and open decompression (0.4% vs. 0.4%). Endoscopic decompression was associated with lower rates of cerebrospinal fluid leak or pseudomeningocele (0.3% vs. 0.5%) and unplanned reoperation (0.2% vs. 1.8%). Overall, healthcare utilization did not differ significantly between cohorts (6.3% vs. 6.1%). However, meningitis (0.4% vs. 0.2%), deep vein thrombosis (0.7% vs. 0.5%), and myocardial infarction (0.4% vs. 0.2%) occurred more frequently following endoscopic decompression. No significant differences were observed in wound disruption. Endoscopic lumbar decompression was associated with lower 90-day rates of cerebrospinal fluid-related complications and unplanned reoperation, though absolute differences were small. Higher rates of meningitis, venous thromboembolism, and myocardial infarction were observed in the endoscopic cohort, while overall healthcare utilization and wound-related complications were comparable. Overall, endoscopic decompression appears safe with modest advantages over open surgery.Level of evidence: Level III Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41721128What 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.