ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2026
Postoperative complications and mechanical outcomes following endoscopic versus open lumbar fusion: A propensity-matched analysis.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic lumbar fusion has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to traditional open fusion, yet large-scale comparative evidence on postoperative safety and long-term effectiveness remains limited. This study evaluated national real-world outcomes following endoscopic versus open lumbar fusion. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the TriNetX US Collaborative Network. Adult patients undergoing endoscopic and open lumbar fusion were identified using ICD-10-PCS codes. Propensity score matching (1:1) generated 2 balanced cohorts (n=23,723 each). Ninety-day medical and surgical complications were compared using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). One-year and 2-year pseudoarthrosis, instrumentation failure, and revision surgery were evaluated using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Statistical significance was set at p<.05. Results: Endoscopic fusion demonstrated higher 90-day rates of UTI (OR: 1.20, 95% CI, 1.06-1.35, p=.003) and pneumonia (OR: 1.22, 95% CI, 1.01-1.47, p=.043). Among surgical outcomes, endoscopic fusion had higher post-operative hematoma (OR: 1.42, 95% CI, 1.05-1.92, p=.023) and SSI (OR: 1.36, 95% CI, 1.20-1.54, p<.001), but lower wound complications (OR: 0.94, 95% CI, 0.79-1.11, p=.461) and CSF leak (OR: 0.59, 95% CI, 0.45-0.78, p<.001). At one year, endoscopic fusion showed higher pseudoarthrosis (13.5% vs. 6.4%, RR: 2.10, 95% CI, 1.99-2.22, p<.001), whereas rates of revision surgery were not significantly different (0.70% vs. 0.62%, RR: 1.14, 95% CI, 0.92-1.40, p=.231). Instrumentation failure remained lower (0.09% vs. 0.30%, RR: 0.31, 95% CI, 0.19-0.49, p<.001). At 2 years, pseudoarthrosis (18.9% vs. 8.8%, p<.001) remained higher, instrumentation failure remained lower (0.2% vs. 0.65%, p<.001), and revision surgery occurred at similar rates (1.60% vs. 1.60%, p=.994). Conclusions: Endoscopic lumbar fusion was associated with higher rates of several medical and infection-related complications, as well as significantly higher pseudoarthrosis at 1 and 2 years, while demonstrating lower instrumentation failure. These findings highlight distinct risk profiles between techniques and emphasize the importance of patient selection and continued refinement of endoscopic fusion approaches.
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.