Background and Objective: The concept of endoscopic surgery began in the 1930s and has since undergone numerous advancements in both technology and surgical indications. Its main benefit is providing the opportunity to perform surgery while minimizing disruption to surrounding structures. The purpose of this review is to summarize the history, uses, and future directions for spine endoscopic surgery. Methods: A review of national databases was performing using key terms “endoscopic”, “spine” and “surgery” for literature from 1900 to 2023. Studies that aimed to describe the utilities of endoscopic surgeries, associated outcomes, limitations, and future directions were included. Studies that were not in English were excluded. Key Content and Findings: This review includes a brief overview of the history of endoscopic surgery and its current two main approaches, transforaminal and interlaminar approaches. It then summarizes the main indications and utilization of endoscopic surgery in the lumbar, cervical and thoracic spine, as well as expansion in managing spine tumors, infections, and outpatient surgical cases. Conclusions: There are many rising indications and uses for endoscopic spine surgery in nearly every aspect of the spine. Compared to conventional spine surgery, there is early evidence showing endoscopic surgery is associated with less post-operative pain, shorter hospital stays, and possibly quicker recovery times. As current trends in spine surgery move towards minimally invasive techniques, it is anticipated that the use of endoscopic surgery will continue to expand.

Tibial shaft fractures are a commonly seen injury in orthopedic trauma patients. Fractures commonly occur following high energy mechanisms, such as motor vehicle collisions. There are multiple ways to stabilize tibial shaft fractures. Knowledge of the indications, contraindications, techniques, and complications associated with each technique allows the orthopedic surgeon to make the appropriate decision for each patient by providing both fracture and patient characteristics. This review discusses the indications, techniques, outcomes, and complications associated with intramedullary nailing, minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis, and external fixation of tibial shaft fractures.

The treatment of scoliosis has been explored and debated in medicine since the first recorded texts. Scoliosis treatment has shifted over time from external modalities, such as traction and bracing, to internal stabilization techniques that leverage surgical advances. Surgical fixation constructs can generally be separated into two different modalities: dynamic vs. static constructs. For skeletally immature individuals with progressive deformities, surgical options range from traditional or magnetically controlled growing rods to vertebral body staples or tethering. For individuals who have reached skeletal maturity, many devices have been developed that provide static length constructs. Understanding the surgical options available is critical for the appropriate management of this varied patient population. With this article, we sought to provide a summary of past and present techniques and devices used in the treatment of scoliosis.

Objectives: To compare the subsidence between PEEK vs new 3D printed titanium cage(3DTC) for ACDF surgery. Design: Retrospective cohort study Setting: Single academic spine center. Methods/Outcome Measures: All patients underwent a standard ACDF surgery with respective PEEK and 3DTC interbodies. Cage subsidence was measured as the change in adjusted intervertebral height (aIVH) in immediate post-operative and subsequent follow-up neutral radiographs at 6 months and ≥1-year visits. Severe subsidence was defined as ≥3 mm of aIVH loss on follow up. Basic demographic information and post-operative complications were also measured. Mixed effects linear models were constructed to evaluate difference in subsidence. A total of 26 patients (44 levels) in the PEEK group and 31 patients (48 levels) in the 3DTC group were available for review at minimum 6 months follow up. Results: There was no difference in demographic variables, including Charleston co-morbidity index, BMI and smoking status between groups. The overall average subsidence was 1.17 mm (95% CI : 0.82 – 1.51, p<0.001) at 6 months and 1.42 mm (95% CI: 1.07- 1.78, p<0.001) at 1-year follow up. The 3DTC group had significantly lower subsidence compared to the PEEK group at 6 months (0.84 mm vs 1.59 mm, p <0.05) and at 1 year (0.85 mm vs 1.92 mm, p0.05) Conclusions: 3DTC leads to overall minor, but significant reduction in subsidence compared to PEEK cages in ACDF surgery. 3DTC has comparable severe subsidence rate to PEEK cage