ReviewCureus2026
Functional Outcome of Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery Versus Destandau Endoscopic Spine Surgery: A Structured Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has revolutionized the management of degenerative spinal disorders by reducing surgical morbidity and accelerating recovery. Biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) and Destandau endoscopic spine surgery (DESS) are two advanced minimally invasive techniques for managing lumbar degenerative conditions, including lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and spinal stenosis, which have gained prominence. BESS utilizes two separate portals for endoscopic visualization and instrumentation, providing a wider operative field and greater flexibility in addressing complex pathologies. In contrast, DESS employs a single-port system with a rigid endoscope, known for its simplicity and shorter learning curve. This review evaluates and compares these techniques based on functional outcomes, perioperative characteristics, and complications. Studies consistently report significant postoperative improvements in pain relief and functional disability scores (e.g., Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)) with both techniques. BESS, however, shows a trend toward faster recovery, reduced postoperative pain, and earlier return to normal activities compared to DESS. Complication rates are low and comparable for both approaches, although technical challenges with BESS, such as longer operative time and steeper learning curve, are noted in early stages of adoption. DESS is often preferred in cases requiring straightforward decompression due to its ease of execution. Both techniques minimize tissue trauma, preserve spinal stability, and reduce the risk of postoperative infections. This review aims to guide clinicians in choosing the optimal technique based on patient and procedural factors. This article was conducted as a structured narrative review utilizing a comprehensive literature search methodology.
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.