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.

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.

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.

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.

Image 1.

The biological clock(also known as the circadian rhythm)is the fundamental reliance for all organisms on Earth to adapt and survive in the Earth's rotation environment.Circadian rhythm is the most basic regulatory mechanism of life activities,and plays a key role in maintaining normal physiological and biochemical homeostasis,disease occurrence and treatment.Recent studies have shown that the biologi-cal clock plays an important role in the development of oral tissues and in the occurrence and treatment of oral diseases.Since there is cur-rently no guiding literature on the research methods of biological clock in stomatology,researchers mainly conduct research based on pub-lished references,which has led to controversy about the research methods of biological clock in stomatology,and there are many confusions about how to rationally apply the research methods of circadia rhythms.In view of this,this expert consensus summarizes the characteristics of the biological clock and analyzes the shortcomings of the current biological clock research in stomatology,and organizes relevant experts to summarize and recommend 10 principles as a reference for the rational implementation of the biological clock in stomatology research.