Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Obesity presents significant challenges in spinal surgery, including higher rates of perioperative complications, prolonged operative times, and delayed recovery. Traditional open spine surgery often exacerbates these risks, particularly in patients with obesity, because of extensive tissue dissection and larger incisions. Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has emerged as a promising minimally invasive alternative, offering advantages such as reduced tissue trauma, minimal blood loss, lower infection rates, and faster recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of ESS techniques, including fully endoscopic and biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy and decompression, in patients with obesity and lumbar spine pathologies. A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases yielded 2,975 studies published between 2000 and 2024, of which 10 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in pain relief (Visual Analog Scale) and functional outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index), with comparable results between patients with and without obesity. Patients who are obese experienced longer operative times and have a slightly higher risk of symptom recurrence; however, ESS demonstrated lower rates of wound infections, shorter hospital stays, and faster recovery than traditional surgery. These findings position ESS as a viable and effective option for managing lumbar spine conditions in patients with obesity, addressing obesity-related surgical challenges while maintaining favorable clinical outcomes. However, limitations such as study heterogeneity and the lack of randomized controlled trials highlight the need for further high-quality research to refine ESS techniques and optimize patient care in this high-risk population.

Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) with interbody fusion is a relatively novel minimally invasive technique that was developed to reduce soft tissue trauma and intraoperative blood loss and shorten recovery time while achieving comparable clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative diseases. Despite the growing interest in BESS, a comprehensive analysis of its effectiveness, complication rates, and long-term outcomes remains lacking. This systematic review evaluated the clinical outcomes, surgical efficacy, and complication rates of BESS with interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases. Recent literature on endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion was included to expand the scope and gain new perspectives, thereby, providing a comparative analysis that highlighted the advantages, limitations, and emerging trends in minimally invasive spine surgery. This review synthesized current evidence to guide future research and clinical applications. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and using a combination of MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and relevant keywords, PubMed/Medline and Scopus databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 2000 and September 2024. The studies were assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions) tool to determine the risk of bias. From the 12 studies that provided clinical evidence, the data extracted were patient demographics; operative time; blood loss; clinical outcomes, such as Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and fusion rates; and complications. The mean operative time ranged from 98 to 206 minutes, with fusion rates between 70% and 95%. Most studies reported significant improvements in VAS scores for back and leg pain and ODI scores. Complications, including dural tears (2.9%–6.4%) and hematomas (1.4%–4.3%), were infrequent but notable. BESS with interbody fusion demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes, high fusion rates, and few complications. Although these results are promising, more randomized controlled trials and long-term studies are required to confirm the broader applicability, particularly in more complex or multilevel spinal pathologies.

Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) is a significant spinal condition that can lead to severe neurological deficits. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) have led to the development of promising tools for the early detection and diagnosis of OPLL. This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic performance of ML and DL models and clinical implications in OPLL detection. A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed/Medline and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and September 2024. Eligible studies included those utilizing ML or DL models for OPLL detection using imaging data. All studies were assessed for the risk of bias using appropriate tools. The key performance metrics, including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC), were analyzed. Eleven studies, comprising a total of 6,031 patients, were included. The ML and DL models demonstrated high diagnostic performance, with accuracy rates ranging from 69.6% to 98.9% and AUC values up to 0.99. Convolutional neural networks and random forest models were the most used approaches. The overall risk of bias was moderate, and concerns were primarily related to participant selection and missing data. In conclusion, ML and DL models show great potential for accurate detection of OPLL, particularly when integrated with imaging techniques. However, to ensure clinical applicability, further research is warranted to validate these findings in more extensive and diverse populations.

Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Obesity presents significant challenges in spinal surgery, including higher rates of perioperative complications, prolonged operative times, and delayed recovery. Traditional open spine surgery often exacerbates these risks, particularly in patients with obesity, because of extensive tissue dissection and larger incisions. Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has emerged as a promising minimally invasive alternative, offering advantages such as reduced tissue trauma, minimal blood loss, lower infection rates, and faster recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of ESS techniques, including fully endoscopic and biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy and decompression, in patients with obesity and lumbar spine pathologies. A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases yielded 2,975 studies published between 2000 and 2024, of which 10 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in pain relief (Visual Analog Scale) and functional outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index), with comparable results between patients with and without obesity. Patients who are obese experienced longer operative times and have a slightly higher risk of symptom recurrence; however, ESS demonstrated lower rates of wound infections, shorter hospital stays, and faster recovery than traditional surgery. These findings position ESS as a viable and effective option for managing lumbar spine conditions in patients with obesity, addressing obesity-related surgical challenges while maintaining favorable clinical outcomes. However, limitations such as study heterogeneity and the lack of randomized controlled trials highlight the need for further high-quality research to refine ESS techniques and optimize patient care in this high-risk population.

Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) with interbody fusion is a relatively novel minimally invasive technique that was developed to reduce soft tissue trauma and intraoperative blood loss and shorten recovery time while achieving comparable clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative diseases. Despite the growing interest in BESS, a comprehensive analysis of its effectiveness, complication rates, and long-term outcomes remains lacking. This systematic review evaluated the clinical outcomes, surgical efficacy, and complication rates of BESS with interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases. Recent literature on endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion was included to expand the scope and gain new perspectives, thereby, providing a comparative analysis that highlighted the advantages, limitations, and emerging trends in minimally invasive spine surgery. This review synthesized current evidence to guide future research and clinical applications. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and using a combination of MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and relevant keywords, PubMed/Medline and Scopus databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 2000 and September 2024. The studies were assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions) tool to determine the risk of bias. From the 12 studies that provided clinical evidence, the data extracted were patient demographics; operative time; blood loss; clinical outcomes, such as Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and fusion rates; and complications. The mean operative time ranged from 98 to 206 minutes, with fusion rates between 70% and 95%. Most studies reported significant improvements in VAS scores for back and leg pain and ODI scores. Complications, including dural tears (2.9%–6.4%) and hematomas (1.4%–4.3%), were infrequent but notable. BESS with interbody fusion demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes, high fusion rates, and few complications. Although these results are promising, more randomized controlled trials and long-term studies are required to confirm the broader applicability, particularly in more complex or multilevel spinal pathologies.

Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) is a significant spinal condition that can lead to severe neurological deficits. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) have led to the development of promising tools for the early detection and diagnosis of OPLL. This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic performance of ML and DL models and clinical implications in OPLL detection. A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed/Medline and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and September 2024. Eligible studies included those utilizing ML or DL models for OPLL detection using imaging data. All studies were assessed for the risk of bias using appropriate tools. The key performance metrics, including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC), were analyzed. Eleven studies, comprising a total of 6,031 patients, were included. The ML and DL models demonstrated high diagnostic performance, with accuracy rates ranging from 69.6% to 98.9% and AUC values up to 0.99. Convolutional neural networks and random forest models were the most used approaches. The overall risk of bias was moderate, and concerns were primarily related to participant selection and missing data. In conclusion, ML and DL models show great potential for accurate detection of OPLL, particularly when integrated with imaging techniques. However, to ensure clinical applicability, further research is warranted to validate these findings in more extensive and diverse populations.