ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2026
Evolution of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Contemporary Advances and Future Directions.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewEndoscopic spine surgery has evolved from non-visualized percutaneous discectomy only, into a comprehensive minimally invasive surgical platform with expanding indications across cervical, thoracic, and lumbar pathology. This review examines endoscopic spine surgery's historical evolution, summarizes recent advances in technology and clinical application, and evaluates current evidence regarding outcomes, complications, and future directions. RECENT
findingsEndoscopic spine surgery demonstrates clinical outcomes comparable to traditional open and minimally invasive approaches for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis. Advantages of endoscopic approach include reduced tissue disruption, decreased blood loss, shorter hospitalization, expedited recovery, and faster return to work. Emerging applications include endoscopic-assisted fusion procedures, outpatient spine surgery pathways, and revision decompression techniques. Recent meta-analyses additionally suggest comparable outcomes between uniportal and biportal approaches, although differences in visualization, ergonomics, and learning curves remain areas of ongoing investigation. Current data supports the safety and efficacy of endoscopic surgery in appropriately selected patients, particularly for lumbar decompression procedures. Barriers including steep learning curves, limited formalized training pathways, equipment costs, reimbursement challenges, and the need for long-term comparative outcomes data continue to limit widespread adoption. Future integration of robotics, artificial intelligence, navigation technologies, and biologic augmentation may further expand the role of endoscopic spine surgery.
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.