SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Exoscope versus microscope in spine surgery: A meta-analysis based on procedure-specific subgroup analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) exoscopes have recently emerged as an alternative to the operating microscope (OM) in spine surgery, offering potential ergonomic and educational advantages. However, comparative evidence on surgical outcomes remains fragmented across different spinal pathologies and procedures,. With this work, we aim at comparing surgical and clinical outcomes of exoscopic versus microscopic spine surgery for degenerative conditions through a global meta-analysis, with procedure-specific subgroup analyses. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Comparative studies evaluating 3D exoscope versus microscope in spine surgery for degenerative conditions were included. Continuous outcomes (operative time, blood loss, length of stay, visual analogue scale [VAS] scores) were pooled using a random-effects inverse-variance model and expressed as mean differences (MD). Dichotomous outcomes (complications) were analyzed using Mantel–Haenszel odds ratios (OR). Heterogeneity was quantified with I² and τ² statistics. Subgroup analyses were performed by procedure (ACDF, MIS-TLIF, lumbar microdecompression/microdiscectomy), along with sensitivity analyses and meta-regressions when indicated. A total of 785 patients across 7 studies were included. No significant differences were found in operative time (MD − 5.9 min; 95% CI − 16.4 to + 4.7), complications (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.53–1.30), length of stay (MD − 0.15 days; 95% CI − 0.84 to + 0.53), or postoperative VAS scores. Blood loss was slightly reduced with the exoscope (MD − 5.9 mL; 95% CI − 11.1 to − 0.6), although the clinical relevance appears negligible. Subgroup analyses showed consistent findings across ACDF, MIS-TLIF, and lumbar microdecompression. Despite significant limitations, current literature supports comparable surgical and clinical outcomes between 3D exoscopes and OM across spine procedures. Exoscopes may offer ergonomic and didactic advantages without increasing operative time, complications, or hospital stay. However, standardized quantification of performance in the former non-clinical domains is missing. Further high-quality randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings and define procedure-specific benefits.
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.