Objective: The ever-growing number of articles related to full-endoscopic spine surgery published in the last few decades presents a challenge which is perplexing and time-consuming in identifying the current research status. The study aims to identify and analyze the most cited works related to full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery, compare the articles published by different publishers and area, and show the current publication status of full-endoscopic research.Methods: Using Bibliometrix, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer, we analyzed the bibliometric data selected from the Web of Science database between 1992 and 2022. Spine has the highest H-index with the most-cited journal in the field of full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery. China ranked as the most productive country, whereas the most cited with high H-index papers came from South Korea. For the author analysis, Yeung AT, Ruetten S, Hoogland T, Ahn Y, Choi G, and Mayer HM were the most impactful authors in the global and local citations. The most productive organization is Wooridul Spine Hospital.Conclusion: The bibliometric study showed a growing trend of research on full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery over the past 30 years. It has demonstrated that there is a significant increase in the number of authors, institutions, and internationally collaborated countries. However, the quality of studies is still low, and the lack of high-quality clinical evidence and the trend of general journal submissions has somewhat affected the quality of endoscopy journals in recent years.

Background and Objectives: To estimate the clinical outcomes of uniportal and biportal full-endoscopic spine surgery for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease (LDD), and to provide the latest evidence for clinical selection. Materials and Methods: Relevant literatures published in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, and WanFang Database before 21 November 2021 were searched systematically. Two researchers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies. The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using the Review Manager software (version 5.4; The Cochrane Collaboration). Results: A total of seven studies were included in this meta-analysis, including 198 patients in a uniportal endoscopy group and 185 patients in a biportal endoscopy group. The results of this meta-analysis demonstrated that the biportal endoscopy group experienced less intraoperative estimated blood loss (WMD = −2.54, 95%CI [−4.48, −0.60], p = 0.01), while the uniportal endoscopy group displayed significantly better recovery results in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) assessments of the back within 3 days of surgery (WMD = 0.69, 95%CI [0.02, 1.37], p = 0.04). However, no significant differences in operation time, length of hospital stay, complication rates, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (within 3 months), ODI (last follow-up), VAS for back (within 3 months), VAS for back (last follow-up), and VAS for leg (within 3 days, within 3 months, last follow-up) were identified between the two groups. Conclusions: According to our meta-analysis, patients who underwent the uniportal endoscopic procedure had more significant early postoperative back pain relief than those who underwent the biportal endoscopic procedure. Nevertheless, both surgical techniques are safe and effective.