ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Direct endoscopic visualization improves endplate preparation in lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative study of biportal endoscopic and conventional techniques.
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the quality of endplate preparation between biportal endoscopic interbody fusion (BEIF) and conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in clinical cases using intraoperative endoscopic assessment.
methodsThis retrospective study compared endplate preparation quality between BEIF (n = 25) and conventional TLIF (n = 22) in single-level L4-L5 lumbar fusion procedures. Endplate preparation quality was evaluated using standardized 30-degree endoscopic visualization with a 4-point grading system, assessing both ipsilateral and contralateral regions of upper and lower endplates. Inter- and intra-observer reliability of the grading system were assessed. Clinical outcomes were analyzed using linear mixed models, and fusion rates and complications were assessed at one-year follow-up.
resultsBEIF demonstrated significantly better endplate preparation quality across all evaluated regions (all p < 0.001), with total scores of 10.76 ± 0.97 vs. 7.59 ± 1.37. Endplate violation rates were comparable between groups (upper: 20% vs. 27%, p = 0.732; lower: 36% vs. 45%, p = 0.562). Linear mixed model analysis revealed significantly better visual analog scale (VAS) back pain outcomes in the BEIF group (p = 0.011), which remained significant after baseline adjustment (adjusted p = 0.034). Both groups achieved comparable fusion rates at one-year follow-up (88% vs. 95%, p = 0.611).
conclusionsBEIF may enable superior endplate preparation quality compared to conventional TLIF across all evaluated regions, and demonstrated significantly better postoperative back pain outcomes after controlling for baseline differences. However, given that the proposed grading system has not yet been externally validated, these results should be regarded as preliminary and hypothesis-generating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42307733What 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.