Objective This study aims to compare the risk of subsequent surgery following surgical treatment of clinical adjacent-segment pathology (CASP) after lumbar fusion, specifically evaluating decompression alone versus decompression with extension of the fusion.
Methods Using the Swespine registry, we included patients who had surgical treatment for CASP following index lumbar fusion surgery, 1997–2019. The cohort was divided according to CASP treatment: decompression alone or decompression with extended fusion. A comparison of subsequent surgeries was made with Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regressions adjusted for potential confounders (age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, number of operated levels at CASP surgery, number of fused levels at index fusion surgery, and diagnosis for CASP surgery).
Results A total of 2,521 patients were included, 1,176 (47%) in the decompression-group and 1,345 (53%) in the extended fusion group and the mean follow-up was 6.1±4.4 years. Mean age at CASP surgery was 61 years and 1,588 (63%) were females. The median time to subsequent surgery was 1.7 years (range, 0.9–3.7 years). Kaplan-Meier–estimated probability of subsequent surgeries at 5 years was 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15%–20%) for the decompression-group and 25% (95% CI, 22%–27%) for the extended fusion group. The hazard ratio was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.02–1.56; p=0.032) for those with extended fusion.
Conclusion Extension of fusion for CASP was associated with significantly higher risk of subsequent surgery, but causality should be interpreted with caution as radiographic information on instability, deformity, or foraminal stenosis could not be verified.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
A Commentary on “How to Treat Adjacent-Segment Pathology Following Lumbar Fusion Surgery: Decompression Alone or Decompression With Extended Fusion Surgery?” Jang W. Yoon Neurospine.2026; 23(3): 564. CrossRef
When Is Fusion Necessary in Addressing Symptomatic Adjacent Level Pathology – A Commentary on “How to Treat Adjacent-Segment Pathology Following Lumbar Fusion Surgery: Decompression Alone or Decompression With Extended Fusion Surgery?” Marc A. Arslanian, Vignessh Kumar, Lee A. Tan Neurospine.2026; 23(3): 561. CrossRef
From the Editor-in-Chief: Featured Articles in the July 2026 Issue Inbo Han Neurospine.2026; 23(3): 513. CrossRef
Vit Kotheeranurak, Jin-Sung Kim, Inbo Han, Hyeun-Sung Kim, Thanapol Ultarnpatumros, Chinati Puinongpo, Javier Quillo-Olvera, Lei Jiang, Christoph Siepe, Worawat Limthongkul, Weerasak Singhatanadgige, Surachat Jaroenwareekul
Neurospine 2026;23(3):605-624. Published online July 31, 2026
Objective Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) has expanded rapidly, but existing spine registries do not consistently capture ESS-specific technical variables, ultra-early recovery trajectories, selective imaging validation, or dissemination-related learning-curve effects. This review synthesizes established spine registry models, contemporary consensus initiatives, and digital follow-up approaches to propose a candidate ESS-specific registry framework and preliminary Minimum Data Set (MDS) for future validation.
Methods A structured narrative review was conducted on national and multinational spine registries, relevant consensus initiatives, and digital follow-up models. Sources were reviewed with emphasis on governance, data architecture, workflow design, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) integration, follow-up structure, data linkage, validation strategies, and implementation feasibility.
Results Established registries provide a methodological foundation for benchmarking, complication surveillance, longitudinal PROM capture, and real-world evidence generation. However, ESS requires modular augmentation of existing registry infrastructures to capture approach-specific operative details, early recovery, selective imaging phenotypes, and governance-controlled maturity indicators. The proposed candidate MDS is organized into 4 domains: (1) baseline case-mix and phenotyping, (2) procedure-specific technical and perioperative variables, (3) selective quantitative imaging and morphometric validation, and (4) structured longitudinal outcome surveillance. The framework prioritizes an essential core dataset while separating recommended, optional, research-oriented, and governance-controlled modules, including digitally enabled early follow-up, opioid-related outcomes, radiation exposure, advanced imaging, and learning-curve variables.
Conclusion A candidate ESS-specific registry framework may support harmonized data capture, real-world evidence generation, quality feedback, and future registry-based research. Formal Delphi consensus, multicenter feasibility testing, and staged integration into existing spine registry infrastructures are required before broader implementation.
Objective To evaluate early postoperative mobility after lumbar decompression using real-time location system (RTLS)-derived objective metrics and to explore differences in mobility patterns between biportal endoscopic decompression and open decompression.
Methods This retrospective cohort study included 323 patients who underwent lumbar decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis between March 2020 and May 2024. RTLS sensors embedded in wristbands continuously recorded patient mobility during postoperative days (PODs) 1–4. Primary RTLS-derived outcomes included total walking distance, mean walking speed, and active movement ratios (top 20% and top 50%). Between-group comparisons were performed using nonparametric tests. Propensity score matching and multivariable median quantile regression adjusting for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and preoperative mobility were conducted.
Results RTLS identified differences in early postoperative activity patterns between surgical approaches. In adjusted analyses, activity-intensity–based metrics, particularly the top 20% activity ratio, remained significantly higher in the biportal endoscopic decompression group across multiple PODs. Subgroup analyses demonstrated minimal differences after single-level decompression, whereas activity-based differences were more frequently observed in multilevel procedures.
Conclusion RTLS-based continuous monitoring detected differences in early postoperative activity patterns following lumbar decompression. These findings support the role of RTLS as an objective tool for assessing early functional recovery in spine surgery.
Objective Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become a mainstay technique for interbody fusion, allowing for large contact area between implant and endplate, and providing increased stability and greater area for fusion. The development of 3-dimensional (3D)-expandable implants that provide multidimensional (3D) expansion has shown to provide better height restoration and clinical outcomes when compared to static implants. Comparison of the endplate coverage between 3D-expandable and static TLIF implants has yet to be studied. This study compares endplate coverage achieved with static TLIF, 3D-expandable TLIF, and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) implants.
Methods A retrospective review of patients undergoing interbody fusion with either static TLIF, 3D-expandable TLIF, or ALIF between the years 2014 and 2022 was conducted. Postoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging was used to measure endplate and implant dimensions. 3D-expandable TLIF interbody device areas were calculated using diameter measurements on postoperative CT. The coverage ratio was defined as the ratio of twice the area of the implant and the sum of the superior and inferior endplate areas at the operative level.
Results A total of 53 patients per cohort were included. The average endplate coverage ratios for static TLIF, 3D-expandable TLIF, and ALIF implants were 0.19±0.04, 0.35±0.06, and 0.46±0.13, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed comparable coverage of 3D-expandable TLIF to ALIF implants at L3–4 and L4–5, while ALIF remained superior at L5–S1.
Conclusion 3D-expandable TLIF interbody devices provide greater endplate coverage when compared to static TLIF devices and approach comparable coverage to ALIF implants.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
A Commentary on “Radiographic Analysis of Endplate Coverage of a 3-Dimensional-Expandable Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Implant Compared to Static TLIF and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Implants” Kun Wang, Xiaofeng Lian Neurospine.2025; 22(4): 902. CrossRef
From the Editor-in-Chief: Featured Articles in the December 2025 Issue Inbo Han Neurospine.2025; 22(4): 877. CrossRef
Objective Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spine surgery is a minimally invasive technique that uses continuous irrigation to improve visualization and control bleeding. Effective water pressure management is crucial for patient safety, particularly at the cervical and thoracic levels where spinal cord injury risk is higher. However, real-time pressure monitoring remains underexplored. This study evaluates the impact of real-time water pressure monitoring on safety during UBE surgery.
Methods A prospective study was conducted involving 20 patients undergoing UBE lumbar spine surgery. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the irrigation system: gravity-based or infusion pump. Real-time water pressure was monitored using a digital sensor throughout surgery. Each procedure was categorized into 3 phases: phase I, working space preparation; phase II, laminectomy; phase III, flavectomy, dura exposure, and discectomy. Data was analyzed according to the type of irrigation system and surgical phase.
Results The mean water pressure in the surgical field during UBE spine surgery was 17.98± 8.07 mmHg, with no significant differences between surgical phases. However, the infusion pump system maintained significantly lower mean pressure (12.10±3.51 mmHg) compared to the gravity-based system (23.86±6.97 mmHg, p=0.001). The infusion pump system consistently maintained a significantly lower mean water pressure compared to the gravity-based system.
Conclusion Real-time water pressure monitoring during UBE surgery enhances safety by enabling improved control of pressure within the surgical field. Both the gravity-based and infusion pump systems safely maintained working space pressure, with the pump system showing significantly lower pressure levels.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Case Report: Spinal epidural lipomatosis with incomplete cauda equina syndrome treated with unilateral biportal endoscopic technique Zaiyin Deng, Yujin Wang, Mohammed Saud Shaik, Duanyang Li, Rongjing Di, Zhourui Wu, Bin Ma Frontiers in Surgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Epidemiology of spinal cord hypertension syndrome in water-mediated uniportal full endoscopic thoracolumbar surgery: a single-center experience Haiyang Wu, Luyang Wang, Yiping Zheng, Xizhong Zhu, Wanqi Ren, Ziheng Li, Shoule Ma, Mingwang Zhao, Xingchen Li, Yusheng Xu European Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Controlled versus gravity-based irrigation in endoscopic spine surgery: pressure stability, thresholds, and safety implications Rajendra Singh, Thomas Cha, Alexander Vaccaro, Alan Hilibrand, Gregory Schroeder, Gregory Kepler, Afshin Razi, Mitchell Ng European Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Approach for Midthoracic Calcified Herniated Disc: A Case Report and Technical Note Young-Il Ko, Hun-Chul Kim, Jin-Young Lee Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2026; 11(Suppl 2): S343. CrossRef
Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Technical Notes in Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique 2025: A Structured Analysis of Procedural Trends and Safety Reporting Audai Abudayeh, Iakiv Fishchenko, Valentyn Piontkovski Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2026; 11(Suppl 2): S317. CrossRef
Unilateral biportal endoscopic cervical laminectomy with bilateral foraminotomy for cervical myeloradiculopathy: clinical and radiological outcomes at 1 year JinWoo Jung, Sang-Woo Lee, Donghyun Kim, Young San Ko, Dae-Chul Cho, Sang-Kyu Son, Man-Kyu Park Neurosurgical Review.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Gravity-Based vs. Pump-Assisted Irrigation in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Effects on Operative Efficiency, Clinical Outcomes, and Complications Uğur Özdemir, Abdülhalim Akar, Muhammed Fatih Serttaş, Ali Murat Başak, Tunahan Aka Medicina.2026; 62(9): 1640. CrossRef
Metastatic spine disease represents a growing therapeutic challenge that demands a balance between incorporating emerging technologies while respecting the fundamental principles during clinical decision-making. Advances in adjuvant therapies, including stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and chemotherapy, have significantly improved long-term patient survival. Surgical decision-making should be guided by well-established frameworks such as the NOMS (neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, systemic) criteria, the ESCC (epidural spinal cord compression) scale, and the SINS (spinal instability neoplastic score), ensuring a structured and evidence-based approach to treatment. The integration of minimally invasive techniques, including percutaneous instrumentation, ablation techniques, and biportal endoscopic approaches, has reduced surgical morbidity and facilitated faster recovery. Additionally, carbon fiber implants are revolutionizing spinal stabilization by allowing better postoperative visualization of any local recurrence and easier radiation planning. SBRT has emerged as a critical modality, offering precise, high-dose radiation with minimal toxicity to the spinal cord, improving local tumor control and patient outcomes. A multidisciplinary approach remains paramount, requiring collaboration between spine surgeons, radiation oncologists, and medical oncologists. In this narrative review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of metastatic spine tumor management, focusing on: (1) fundamentals of metastatic spine care, (2) minimally invasive surgical techniques, (3) the use of carbon fiber screws, (4) SBRT, and (5) ways to maximize patient safety.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Neoplastic Cauda Equina Syndrome: When Do We Not Operate? Harsh Jain, Advith Sarikonda, Tamia Potter, Campbell Liles, Robert J. Dambrino, Ryan Whitaker, Scott L. Zuckerman Neurosurgery Practice.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
A Biophysical and ALARA-Based Comparison of 3D-CRT and IMRT for Spinal Cord Compression Mohammed Elywa, Basma Hawass, Magda Shanafy, Ayat M. Saadeldin Biophysica.2026; 6(4): 68. CrossRef
Does Duration of Symptoms in Metastatic Spine Disease Affect Recovery and Outcomes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Harsh Jain, Nick De Oliveira, Advith Sarikonda, Ori Barzilai, Nicolas Dea, Alessandro Gasbarrini, C. Rory Goodwin, Cordula Netzer, Jeremy Reynolds, Laurence D. Rhines, Arjun Sahgal, Jorrit-Jan Verlaan, Daniel M. Sciubba, Ilya Laufer, Scott L. Zuckerman Global Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Mazda Farshad, Jana Felicitas Schader, Alexandra Stauffer, Carl Moritz Zipser, Najmeh Kheram, José Miguel Spirig, Marie-Rosa Fasser, Jonas Widmer, Vincent Hagel
Neurospine 2025;22(2):583-591. Published online June 30, 2025
Objective Endoscopic spine surgery implies possibly severe complications of the central nervous system, from headache to seizures and autonomic dysreflexia. These adverse events might be due to increased intracranial pressure (ICP), presumably induced by increased spinal intra-/epidural pressure caused by fluid irrigation. This study was designed to perform interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (IELD) at different irrigation fluid settings while monitoring its effect on intra-/epidural and ICPs, with and without dural tears.
Methods Spinal intradural pressures were measured by introducing catheters through a sacral approach to human cadavers’ lumbar, thoracic, and cervical levels. Additionally, an epidural probe was placed at L3–4. ICP was measured by an intraventricular probe. IELD was performed at L3–4, and the effect of varying irrigation pressures by different endoscopic pump systems and gravity-based irrigation on intra-/epidural and ICP pressures was measured before and after durotomy at L3–4.
Results Intradural pressure at L3–4 correlated linearly with increasing irrigation pressure, irrespective of the used pump system (median pressure increase at 100-mmHg irrigation pressure: system I: 7 mmHg, r=0.94, p=0.002; system II: 7 mmHg, r=0.89, p=0.017) or gravity (8 mmHg, r=0.93, p=0.242). This effect was also seen intradurally at the thoracic/cervical spine, epidural, and intracranial level, and was even more pronounced with the maneuver of outflow-occlusion and a dural tear present.
Conclusion While performing IELD, pump pressures correlated linearly to intra-/epidural pressures and ICPs. Pressures did not rise to concerningly high levels without outflow-occlusion, even with increased pump pressures. In the presence of a dural tear, higher pump pressures exacerbated by occlusion may lead to deleterious intradural and ICP elevations.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Preliminary Report of Full-Endoscopic Spinal Dural Repair Using Double-Arm Sutures With a Biportal Endoscopic System: Technical Note and Feasibility Evaluation in an Ex Vivo Porcine Model Kuo-Hua Chao, Chiu-Ming Chen, Jui-Jung Yang Operative Neurosurgery.2026; 31(1): 144. CrossRef
Biportal endoscopic foraminotomy of the L7–S1 neuroforamen in dogs: Description of surgical technique and ex vivo comparison with conventional open dorsolateral foraminotomy Dimitrios Bekiaridis, Antonio Pozzi, Frank Steffen, Julian Guevar, Lucas A. Smolders Veterinary Surgery.2026; 55(4): 837. CrossRef
A Protocol to Preserve the Dural Safety Margin During Simultaneous Hybrid Lumbar Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy and Cervical Laminoplasty Karson Tam, H.Y. Li, H.K. Lo, W.L. Kam World Neurosurgery.2026; 209: 124877. CrossRef
Epidemiology of spinal cord hypertension syndrome in water-mediated uniportal full endoscopic thoracolumbar surgery: a single-center experience Haiyang Wu, Luyang Wang, Yiping Zheng, Xizhong Zhu, Wanqi Ren, Ziheng Li, Shoule Ma, Mingwang Zhao, Xingchen Li, Yusheng Xu European Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Validation of the VIEW score: a novel intraoperative grading scale for visualization in endoscopic spine surgery Vit Kotheeranurak, Surachat Jaroenwareekul, Jin-Sung Kim, Christoph Siepe, Don Young Park, Javier Quillo-Olvera, Worawat Limthongkul, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Weerasak Singhatanadgige European Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
ADAMKIEWICZ’S ARTERY IN ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY: NARRATIVE REVIEW Ricardo Rezende Campos, Charbel Jacob Junior, Marcelo Botelho Soares de Brito, Jorge Felipe Ramírez León2, Gabriel Oswaldo Alonso Cuéllar, Sonja Ellen Lobo, João Paulo Machado Bergamaschi Coluna/Columna.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Short term complications and risk factors of unilateral biportal endoscopic cervical spine surgery in patients with cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy: a single center retrospective study Chengyue Zhu, Xinning Mao, Zhongshu Shan, Donghao Du, Jiaming Liang, Junfeng Shen, Hao Pan, Wei Zhang, Fangcai Li Frontiers in Medicine.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Pneumocephalus with suspected cerebrospinal fluid leakage after epiduroscopic epidural neuroplasty: a case report Min Jeong Kang, Bo Kyung Kang, Seung Hee Yoo, Won-joong Kim Ewha Medical Journal.2026; 49(3): e23. CrossRef
Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Approach for Midthoracic Calcified Herniated Disc: A Case Report and Technical Note Young-Il Ko, Hun-Chul Kim, Jin-Young Lee Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2026; 11(Suppl 2): S343. CrossRef
Postoperative pain is an inevitable consequence of spine surgery, yet there remains no universal consensus on the optimal pain management strategy. The complexity of spine procedures, coupled with patient variability, necessitates a multifaceted approach to pain control. Over time, numerous strategies have emerged, each with varying levels of effectiveness. Pharmacological approaches, including multimodal analgesia, local anesthetic infusions, and gabapentinoids, provide relief for both acute and chronic pain. Additionally, perioperative strategies such as enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have demonstrated benefits in optimizing pain control and recovery outcomes. Beyond pharmacological interventions, physical therapy has become a cornerstone of postoperative pain management, aiding in functional recovery and reducing reliance on medications. For patients with refractory or chronic pain, neuromodulatory techniques such as spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal injections offer alternative solutions. Despite the breadth of evidence-based strategies available, limitations persist, including opioid dependence, the complexity of multimodal regimens leading to suboptimal compliance, and cases of refractory pain. These challenges underscore the importance of tailoring pain management approaches to individual patient needs, ensuring a balance between effectiveness and safety. This narrative review of evidence seeks to explore the multifaceted nature of pain management following spine surgery, highlighting the challenges and evolving strategies in optimizing patient outcomes.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
ERAS-guided matrix nursing pathway targeting risk factors in spine surgery: development and prospective evaluation Yanlan Ma, Jin Zhao, Jing Peng Frontiers in Medicine.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Ropivacaine-Dexamethasone vs. Ropivacaine-Magnesium Sulfate in TAP Block: A Randomized Study of Postoperative Analgesia in Lower Abdominal Surgeries Shah Mehndi Masih, Shashi Shekhar, Gurmukh Prasad International Journal of Science and Healthcare Research.2026; : 48. CrossRef
Extracellular Vesicle-Based Biomarkers in Spinal Cord Injury: A State-of-the-Art Review on Diagnostic and Prognostic Advances Trung Nhan Vo, Hae Eun Shin, Yeji Kim, Inbo Han International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2026; 27(4): 2079. CrossRef
Erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in vertebral surgery: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis and meta-regression Burhan Dost, Esra Turunc, Yunus Emre Karapinar, Muzeyyen Beldagli, Engin Ihsan Turan, Hilal Dokmeci, Alessandro De Cassai Journal of Clinical Anesthesia.2026; 111: 112184. CrossRef
Liposomal Bupivacaine Infiltration and Postoperative Pain Outcomes in Lumbar Fusion: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Shi-Jing Zhang, Xin Lu, Tian-Xiao Liu, Qing Liu, Yu-Bo Xie Journal of Pain Research.2026; Volume 19: 1. CrossRef
Spinal cord stimulation versus medical therapy for post-laminectomy syndrome: Two- and five-year risks of systemic morbidity, reoperation, and death Muaz Wahid, Zuhair Zaidi, Syed Murtaza Kazmi, Sameer Sajjad, Yousef Alshaikhsalama, Isa Faghihi, Salah G. Aoun Journal of Orthopaedic Reports.2026; 5(4): 101006. CrossRef
Treatment Options for Chronic Pain After Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Interventional, Pharmacological, and Rehabilitative Strategies Alok G Belgaumkar, Neha T Gaidhankar, Pooja N. V. Cureus.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Injectable Poloxamer and Hyaluronic Acid Hydrogel for Sustained Co-Delivery of Dexamethasone and Lidocaine Ameliorates Neuropathic Pain Yanting Liu, Seungwoon Baik, Trung Nhan Vo, Songzi Zhang, Boram Kim, Tae-Keun Ahn, Inbo Han, Dong Keun Han Biomaterials Research.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Exploring the analgesic effect of artificial dura mater as a carrier for local hydromorphone delivery in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a randomized controlled trial Jian Miao, Ruiming Deng, Tingyu He, Ziqiang Dong, Xianwei Jin, Weibo Zhong Frontiers in Pharmacology.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
High-Frequency Global Postoperative Status PROMs Track Pain Peaks and Analgesic Use After Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery Pavlina Lenga, Robin Fleige, Max Christian Blumenstock, Matthias Ganzinger, Sebastian Ille, Sandro M. Krieg, Martin Dugas Global Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Chiropractic’s role in strengthening rehabilitation in health systems Katie de Luca, Afua Adjei-Kwayisi, Nora Bakaa, Christoffer Andre Børsheim, Amy Bowzaylo, Richard Brown, Raul Carrillo, Patricia Estrada, Jean-Luc Gauthier, Jordan A. Gliedt, Brett Guist, Neil Langridge, Peter Tuchin, Michael Vianin, Arnold Y. L. Wong Chiropractic & Manual Therapies.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Pain Management in Trauma Patients Yasemin Yazman Arınç, Arzu Gerçek Sağlık Profesyonelleri Araştırma Dergisi.2026; (2026): 84. CrossRef
Impact of an algorithm-based postoperative pain management in patients undergoing abdominal surgery—A prospective interventional study R. Priyanka, Lakshmi Ramamoorthy, Lenin Babu Elakkumanan, Biju Pottakkat, H. T. Lalthanthuami, Unnikrishnan Puliakkuth Journal of Education and Health Promotion.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Efficacy of Preoperative Oral Clonidine in Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Ahmed Abu-Zaid, Abdulrahman Emad AlAyyaf, Maznah M. Alajmi, Abdulmuhsen Alqallaf, Batoul H. Aljaber, Waleed Bader Alazemi, Abdullah Khaled Alothainah, Mohammad F. Al-Mutairi, Mohammad Ali Behbehani, Khaled Mohammad Altamimi, Saud Jaber Almarri, Abdullah M Journal of Clinical Medicine.2026; 15(13): 5270. CrossRef
Factors Associated with the Early Ambulation After Elective Lumbar Spinal Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study Busakorn Ruksouy, Tanyong Pipanmekaporn, Pathomporn Pin-on, Pichitchai Atthakomol, Piyada Boonsong Journal of Clinical Medicine.2026; 15(13): 5307. CrossRef
Chronic Pain after Spinal Surgery: Pathophysiology and Management Jae-Hyun Lee Clinical Pain.2026; 25(1): 1. CrossRef
Sociodemographic reporting in randomized controlled trials for opioid management following lumbar fusion surgery Bradley Q. Fox, Evan J. Schrader, Devika A. Shenoy, Ian P. Halliday, Elizabeth Chan, Mason Dermott, Christina Colon-Sanchez, Abigail Heims, Stephanie Hendren, Brett Rocos, Anthony A. Catanzano Pain Management.2026; : 1. CrossRef
Integrating Regional Anesthesia and Early Physiotherapy for Enhanced Recovery Following Joint and Spine Surgery: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions Dr.Y.Praveen Kumar, Dr. Pallavi Yellarthi, Dr. Sujata Haridas Nair (PT), Dr Akshay Sreedharan, Vasantakumarnaik N.K, Singireddy Dattakshaya, Dr Rutambhara Sahu PAIN, JOINTS, SPINE.2026; 16(6S): 875. CrossRef
Analgesic-soaked acellular dermal matrix for postoperative pain control after endoscopic spine surgery: a retrospective chart review Doohun Hyun, Woo Min Park, Jung Hoon Park, Chai Min Yoo, Woo Joo Lee, Shih Min Lee, Cheol Wung Park Journal of Korean Society of Geriatric Neurosurgery.2025; 21(2): 68. CrossRef
Perioperative Blood Pressure Optimization to Improve Outcomes in Orthopedic Patients: A Clinical Review Yu-fan Yang, Xiaqing Ma, Mudussar Ahmad, Paul Lee, Yibin Qin, Fu-hai Ji, Nazneen Sudhan, Ke Peng Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management.2025; Volume 21: 1667. CrossRef
Jennifer M. Hah, Shana C. Levine, Saneel Khairnar, Luke Pirrotta, Alma Rechav Ben-Natan, Emily Tse, Gabrielle Hettie, Todd Alamin, Anand Veeravagu, Serena Hu, Tina Hernandez-Boussard
Neurospine 2025;22(2):451-464. Published online June 30, 2025
Objective Preoperative opioid misuse is associated with worse postoperative outcomes. This prospective longitudinal cohort study evaluated the association between preoperative opioid misuse and prolonged pain and opioid use after elective spine surgery; and examined postoperative trajectories of patient-reported outcomes over one year.
Methods Fifty-two patients undergoing elective spine surgery completed presurgical and weekly postoperative longitudinal assessments of pain and opioid use and monthly assessments of depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and physical function. Cox regression analyzed the effect of preoperative opioid misuse on time to pain and opioid cessation while linear mixed-effects models examined longitudinal changes in postoperative outcomes.
Results Adjusting for age, sex, operative region, number of spinal levels, and any preoperative opioid use, preoperative opioid misuse (COMM-Positive) was associated with a delayed return to baseline opioid dose (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14–0.88; p=0.02) and delayed opioid cessation (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09–0.59; p=0.008). All patients experienced comparable reductions in current and average pain intensity, and pain interference over time. COMM-Positive patients reported a normalization of postoperative anxiety and depression 1 month after surgery with a rebound at 3 months while patients without preoperative opioid misuse remained stable over time.
Conclusion Preoperative opioid misuse is a significant risk factor for delayed opioid cessation even after adjusting for preoperative opioid use, and is associated with a transient normalization of anxiety and depressive symptoms with a rebound 3 months following spine surgery. Targeted screening and risk reduction strategies are needed for patients reporting preoperative opioid misuse before spine surgery.
Objective This study aimed to determine the rates, causes, and predictive factors of readmissions at different periods following spine surgery, up to 180 days.
Methods This study utilized data from the 2018 to 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database and included four postoperative periods: 0 to 7 days, 8 to 30 days, 31 to 90 days, and 91 to 180 days. The causes of readmissions and potential predictive factors were systematically identified. All analyses were performed for each period.
Results For the 180,281 patients (mean age, 65.4 years) included, 2.4% were readmitted between 0 and 7 days, 3.5% between 8 and 30 days, 3.7% between 31 and 90 days, and 4.3% between 91 and 180 days (cumulative rates: 2.4%, 5.9%, 9.3%, and 12.1%, respectively). The causes of readmissions varied across different periods: surgical site-related causes predominated within the first 30 days, whereas nonsurgical site-related causes were more prevalent from 31 to 180 days; other surgical care complication (e.g., infection) was the most prevalent cause between 0 and 7 days (10.7%) and between 8 and 30 days (29.2%), while spondylopathies/spondyloarthropathy (e.g., spinal stenosis) were the leading causes between 31 and 90 days (12.6%) and between 91 and 180 days (17.5%). The predictive factors associated with readmissions also varied across different periods. For example, patients who underwent fusion was associated with a decreased risk of readmissions between 31 and 180 days (e.g., between 91 and 180 days: odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72–0.86; p<0.001), rather than between 0 and 30 days (e.g., between 0 and 7 days: OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90–1.08; p=0.81).
Conclusion About 6% of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent spine surgery were readmitted within 30 days and 12% by 180 days. The causes of readmissions and predictive factors varied by period, providing valuable insights for quality improvement efforts and the burden of readmission reductions.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Patients with primary thrombophilia on anticoagulation face increased mortality, thromboembolic events, and neurologic complications after laminectomy: a propensity-matched analysis Naasik Syed, Zuhair Zaidi, Muaz Wahid, Ronak Desai International Journal of Research in Orthopaedics.2026; 12(2): 314. CrossRef
Frailty-Muscle Phenotypes Predict Outcomes After Lumbar Fusion in Adults Aged ≥75 Years: A Retrospective Cohort Study Ma Chao Guo, Xiangyu Li, Shuaikang Wang, Xiaolong Chen, Chao Kong, Yuxi Liu, Shibao Lu Neurospine.2026; 23(2): 242. CrossRef
Rates of Subsequent Lumbar Surgery Following Spinal Fusion in Patients With Parkinson Disease:
A Propensity-Score Matched Nationwide Cohort Analysis Chang Hwa Ham, Joo Han Kim, Jong Hyun Kim, Joonho Byun, Hong Joo Moon, Woo-Keun Kwon Neurospine.2026; 23(3): 538. CrossRef
Tomoyuki Asada, Eric R. Zhao, Adin M. Ehrlich, Adrian Lui, Andrea Pezzi, Sereen Halayqeh, Tarek Harhash, Olivia C. Tuma, Kasra Araghi, Todd J. Albert, James Farmer, Russel C. Huang, Harvinder Sandhu, Han Jo Kim, Francis C. Lovecchio, James E. Dowdell, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz A. Qureshi
Neurospine 2025;22(1):3-13. Published online March 31, 2025
Objective While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF.
Methods This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches.
Results Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001).
Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Efficacy of low-dose Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Tae Hoon Kang, Jeongwoon Han, Minjoon Cho, Jae Hyup Lee European Spine Journal.2026; 35(7): 3994. CrossRef
Multifidus Muscle Atrophy Predicts Spinal Cage Subsidence After Lumbar Fusion Cong Zhang, Chengming Li, Xiaotao Wu, Xiaozhi Sun Journal of Pain Research.2026; Volume 19: 1. CrossRef
Biomaterials and Noncoding RNA: The “Repair‐Alliance” Perspective in Intervertebral Disc Degeneration Chen Liu, Zhengguang Li, Yongbo Zhang, Tianyi Ji, Hua Sun, Gen Wei, Liang Zhang, Juqun Xi Advanced Healthcare Materials.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Modified Integrated Health State Suggests Lower Cumulative Neck Pain–Related Disability After Cervical Disk Replacement Compared With Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion Tomoyuki Asada, Adin M. Ehrlich, Sereen Halayqeh, Eric R. Zhao, Adrian T. H. Lui, Andrea Pezzi, Austin C. Kaidi, Kasra Araghi, Vishaal Nayagam, Roger Freeman, Olivia C. Tuma, Tarek Harhash, Harvinder S. Sandhu, Todd J. Albert, Han Jo Kim, James C. Farmer, Neurosurgery.2026; 99(3): 643. CrossRef
Objective The upper lumbar region has distinctive anatomical characteristics that contribute to the challenges of performing discectomy. We introduce far-lateral transforaminal unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region.
Methods We conducted retrospective review of the patients who underwent a far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy at our institution from January 2018 to September 2024. The electronic medical records, operative records, and radiologic images of the patients were reviewed.
Results A total of 27 patients underwent far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy for central or paracentral disc herniations in the upper lumbar region. The patient had a mean age of 54.0 ± 13.7 years. Operation was performed at the L1–2 level in 3 patients (11.1%), L2–3 in 9 patients (33.3%), and L3–4 in 15 patients (55.6%). The patients were followed-up for a mean of 27.7 ± 19.3 months. The Oswestry Disability Index was significantly decreased from 36.3 ± 6.8 preoperatively to 3.7 ± 3.3 at last follow-up (p < 0.001). The visual analogue scale (VAS) back was significantly decreased from 7.8 ± 0.9 preoperatively to 3.1 ± 0.6 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001). The VAS leg was significantly decreased from 8.1 ± 0.8 preoperatively to 2.3 ± 0.7 postoperative day 2 (p < 0.001).
Conclusion The far-lateral transforaminal UBE lumbar discectomy would be a viable surgical option for upper lumbar disc herniations.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Using 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Cages Compared With Open TLIF: A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Fusion Rates Sang Hyub Lee, Junghan Seo, Dain Jeong, Sang Youp Han, Dong Hyun Lee, Jae-Won Jang, Dong-Geun Lee, Choon Keun Park Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2026; 11(Suppl 1): S28. CrossRef
The efficacy and safety of annulus fibrosus suture as adjuvant therapy for lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis Wensi Ouyang, Guimei Guo, Yu Sun, Haobo Jiang, Long Chen, Shaofeng Yang Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Nerve Root Herniation Due to Delayed Dural Tear Following Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression With Lumbar Discectomy Using Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Sang Hyub Lee, Jae-Won Jang, Yong Eun Cho, Choon Keun Park Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2026; 11(Suppl 1): S109. CrossRef
Application of the far-lateral approach in uni-portal non-coaxial spinal endoscopic surgery: an evidence-based and Delphi consensus approach among Chinese expert opinions Mengchen Yin, Yongpeng Lin, Pengfei Yu, Dong Wang, Fengtao Li, Shiyuan Hao, Kening Sun, Kuankuan Li, Yun Liu, Xin Zhang, Jizheng Li, Mingfei Wang, Junming Ma, Wenlong Yu, Li Xue, Zhilin Li, Guodong Gao, Bo Zhang, Benhui Xu, Jing Feng, Chao Chen, Yiguo Yan Brain and Spine.2026; 6: 105994. CrossRef
The influence of the positional relationship between the pedicle and the pars interarticularis on unilateral biportal endoscopy: A retrospective cohort study Shaoning Shen, Tingyuan Lai, Hao Wei, Wangnan Mao, Lianguo Wu, Hanbing Zeng Medicine.2026; 105(12): e47945. CrossRef
Comparison of short-term clinical efficacy between percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopy in the treatment of upper lumbar disc herniation Jing Zhang, Zhinan Ren, Lei Yu, Cheng Peng, Yingjie Hao BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Incidence and Risk Factors for 30- and 90-day Reoperations Following Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniations Sang Hyub Lee, Jae-Won Jang, Hangyu Lee, Limjoon Yoon, Sejin Song, Dain Jeong, Junghan Seo, Sang Youp Han, Bang-Sang Hahn, Jun Young Kim, Jin Seop Hwang, Dong-Geun Lee, Jin-Sung Kim, Dong Chan Lee, Yong Eun Cho, Choon Keun Park Global Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical Efficacy and Learning Curve of Far‐Lateral Approach (FLA) in Uni‐Portal Non‐Coaxial Spinal Endoscopic Surgery (UNSES) in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Prospective Study Mengchen Yin, Wenlong Yu, Yan Lou, Jianfeng Sha, Yang Xue, Dong Zhang, Kaipeng Huang, Kai Lv, Zhichao Ge, Jianmin Li, Jiajun Wu, Hao Sun, Shuqiang Wang Orthopaedic Surgery.2026; 18(9): 1972. CrossRef
Bilateral–Contralateral Endoscopic Decompression as a Fusion-Deferral Strategy in Upper Lumbar Stenosis: A Structural Rationale and Conditional Framework—A Technical Note with Cases Review Dong Hyun Lee, Sang Yeop Han, Seung Young Jeong, Il-Tae Jang Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(16): 5726. CrossRef
Objective To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD).
Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures.
Results A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates.
Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Editorial: Beyond the Portal Wars—Forging a New Consensus in Endoscopic Spine Surgery Jin-Sung Kim, Piya Chavalparit Global Spine Journal.2026; 16(1): 9. CrossRef
Uniportal Endoscopic Surgery for Thoracolumbar Junction Disc Herniation in a Patient With Myelopathy: A Technical Note and Surgical Video Kang Suk Moon, Michel Gustavo Mondragón-Soto, Pedro Leonardo Villanueva-Solórzano Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2026; 11(1): 155. CrossRef
Measuring Value in Surgery: A Scoping Review of Economic Indices Across Specialties Kenneth Nguyen, Emaad Lala, Kento Yamanouchi, Sydney Pattison, Aiyush Bansal, Abhinav Balu, Mir Amaan Ali, Philip K. Louie Journal of Surgical Research.2026; 325: 32. CrossRef
Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Approach for Midthoracic Calcified Herniated Disc: A Case Report and Technical Note Young-Il Ko, Hun-Chul Kim, Jin-Young Lee Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2026; 11(Suppl 2): S343. CrossRef
Abhinav K. Sharma, Rafael Garcia de Oliveira, Siravich Suvithayasiri, Piya Chavalparit, Chien Chun Chang, Yong H. Kim, Charla R. Fischer, Sang Lee, Samuel Cho, Jin-Sung Kim, Don Young Park
Neurospine 2025;22(1):105-117. Published online March 31, 2025
Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Lumbar spinal stenosis: current concept of management Ji-Won Kwon, Kyung-Soo Suk, Seong-Hwan Moon, Si-Young Park, Namhoo Kim, Sub-Ri Park, Jae-Won Shin, Hak-Sun Kim, Byung Ho Lee Asian Spine Journal.2026; 20(1): 143. CrossRef
Delta large-channel endoscopy versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for cervicothoracic junction disc herniation: a prospective randomized controlled trial Huaibin Wang, Hui Li, Rushuo Wei, Hao Yan, Ruzhan Yao, Weiqiang Liu, Ling Li Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Intraoperative Dual-Cantilever Probe for Rapid Measurement of Cancellous Bone Compressive Strength Within the Vertebral Body Owen Kresse, Evelyn Khong, Gerhardus O. Loohuis, R. Elayne Shelby, Maxwell Boakye, Michael J. Voor, Stuart J. Williams Journal of Medical Devices.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Thoracic Full-Endoscopic Decompression for Ossification of Ligamentum Flavum (OLF) Causing Myelopathy Rohit A. Thaker, Smit Kagathara, Pratik Shah Indian Spine Journal.2026; 9(1): 112. CrossRef
Real-time Three-dimensional Navigation in Spine Surgery: Is It the Game Changer? Shailesh Hadgaonkar, Siddharth Aiyer, Abhinav Bhute, Parag Sancheti Indian Spine Journal.2026; 9(1): 37. CrossRef
A retrospective Chinese study on optical–electromagnetic navigation-guided biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis: improving precision and efficiency Xingchen Yao, Junpeng Liu, Li Guan, Jincai Yang, Aixing Pan, Yong Hai Asian Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Robotic-Assisted Uniportal Full-Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Technical Note on a Hybrid Form of Minimally Invasive Surgery Ting Yao Ang, A. Aravin Kumar, Chin Hong Ngai, John J.Y. Zhang, Jacob Y.L. Oh, Ji Min Ling, Thomas C.H. Tan Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2026; 11(1): 105. CrossRef
O‐Arm Navigation Enhances Facet Preservation Without Compromising Clinical Outcomes in UBE Decompression for Radiographically Stable Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Single‐Center Comparative Study Yi Liu, Yiwei Xie, Zhibao Chen, Ruijun Xu, Haojie Chen, Xiaojian Ye, Jiangming Yu Orthopaedic Surgery.2026; 18(6): 1203. CrossRef
EndoUFM: Utilizing foundation models for monocular depth estimation of endoscopic images Xinning Yao, Bo Liu, Bojian Li, Jingjing Wang, Jinghua Yue, Fugen Zhou Neural Networks.2026; 203: 109141. CrossRef
Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Versus Interlaminar Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes, Quality of Life, and Surgical Selection Strategies MOHAMMAD RIYAD ABDULWAHID AL-HASNAWI, Hadi Ali Hadi Dala Ali, Rasool Riyadh Abdulwahid Al Hasnawi, Ameer Neamah Saadoon Al-Mhemis, Hinal Alkeshkumar Patel, Oumaima Souilhi, Mustafa Faris Kadhim Kadhim, Mohammed ali modher abduljaleel Orthopedic Reviews.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Establishing navigated UBE in Europe – technical note Nicole Lange, Carolin Albrecht, Raimunde Liang, Luisa Mona Kraus, Ghaith Altawalbeh, Shadi Abulhala, Ann-Kathrin Joerger, Bernhard Meyer Brain and Spine.2026; 6: 106107. CrossRef
Research Progress on Percutaneous Endoscopic Treatment for Radicular Cervical Spondylosis 怀忠 周 Advances in Clinical Medicine.2026; 16(06): 2540. CrossRef
Comparative Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Arthroscopic‐Assisted Uniportal Spinal Surgery Versus Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy for Unilateral Laminotomy With Bilateral Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A 2‐Year Follow‐Up Study Abdul Waheed Bahir, Wang Daxing, Liu Bailian, Gan Xuewen, Xiong Ying, Xiao Jiayu, Gu Shao Orthopaedic Surgery.2026; 18(8): 1613. CrossRef
Domain-Adapted Foundation Models for Single-Click Surgical Instrument Segmentation in Spinal Endoscopy Bong-Su Mun, Zhi Zhao, Sang-Min Park, Jiwon Park, Hyun-Jin Park, Hyung Rae Lee, Ho-Joong Kim, Jin S. Yeom Neurospine.2026; 23(3): 633. CrossRef
A Structured Four-Phase Training Framework for Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy: Literature Review and Survey-Based Pilot Study Bashar Altunbi, Bader Obeidat, Salim Al Abri, Oludare Ashaolu Asian Journal of Neurosurgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Application of the guidewire anchoring technique in lateral approach transforaminal endoscopic lumbar foraminoplasty: a propensity score–matched retrospective study Guoxing Ding, Huijing Shang, Fuhai Yan, Weijie Cui, Zhi Li, Yiheng Zhang, Zhan Wang, Yifan Feng, Junxiao Su, Hui Zhang Frontiers in Surgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Full-endoscopic extraforaminal lumbar discectomy: Use of 3-D image-guidance can mitigate risks and overcome steep learning curve Anwesha Dubey, Abhijith R. Bathini, Katherine Anastasi, Joshua Bakhsheshian Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.2025; 139: 111455. CrossRef
Navigated Uniportal Endoscopic Decompression for Thoracic Myelopathy Secondary to Ossified Yellow Ligament: A Report of Two Cases Bing Wui Ng, Ozlan Izma Muhamed Kamil Cureus.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
This paper analyzes the regulatory frameworks for artificial intelligence/machine learning AI/ML-enabled medical devices in the European Union (EU), the United States (US), and the Republic of Korea, with a focus on applications in spine surgery. The aim is to provide guidance for developers and researchers navigating regulatory pathways. A review of current literature, regulatory documents, and legislative frameworks was conducted. Key differences in regulatory bodies, risk classification, submission requirements, and approval pathways for AI/ML medical devices were examined in the EU, US, and Republic of Korea. The EU AI Act (2024) establishes a risk-based framework, requiring regulatory review based on device risk, with high-risk devices subject to stricter oversight. The US applies a more flexible approach, allowing multiple submission pathways and incorporating a focus on continuous learning. The Republic of Korea emphasizes possibilities of streamlined approval and with growing use of real-world data to support validation. Developers must ensure regulatory alignment early in the development process, focusing on key aspects like dataset quality, transparency, and continuous monitoring. Across all regions, the need for technical documentation, quality management systems, and bias mitigation are essential for approval. Developers are encouraged to adopt adaptable strategies to comply with evolving regulatory standards, ensuring models remain transparent, fair, and reliable. The EU’s comprehensive AI Act enforces stricter oversight, while the US and Korea offer more flexible pathways. Developers of spine surgery AI/ML devices must tailor development strategies to align with regional regulations, emphasizing transparent development, quality assurance, and postmarket monitoring to ensure approval success.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Artificial intelligence in spine surgery: a scoping review Anis Choucha, Morgane Evin, Matteo de Simone, Guillaume Dannhoff, Henry Dufour, Valentin Avinens, Kaissar Farah, Florian Saby, Stephane Fuentes Neurochirurgie.2026; 72(1): 101764. CrossRef
Applications of Raman Spectroscopy in Pandemic Virology: A Comprehensive Review Hulya Yilmaz, Anuradha Ramoji, Andreea Winterfeld, Hamideh Salehi, Aykut Ozkul, Jürgen Popp ACS Photonics.2026; 13(6): 1568. CrossRef
Application of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment of spinal deformities Chunwang Jia, Haoming Sun, Zhenhao Chen, Yubao Hou, Jiyu Li, Xiaosheng Ma, Feizhou Lyu, Jianyuan Jiang, Yu Chen, Hongli Wang Spine Research.2026; 2(2): 110. CrossRef
Current Applications and Future Directions of Technologies Used in Adult Deformity Surgery for Personalized Alignment: A Narrative Review Janet Hsu, Taikhoom M. Dahodwala, Noel O. Akioyamen, Evan Mostafa, Rami Z. AbuQubo, Xiuyi Alexander Yang, Priya K. Singh, Daniel C. Berman, Rafael De la Garza Ramos, Yaroslav Gelfand, Saikiran G. Murthy, Jonathan D. Krystal, Ananth S. Eleswarapu, Mitchell Journal of Personalized Medicine.2025; 15(10): 480. CrossRef
First
Prev
