Full endoscopic spine surgery (FESS) offers an ultra-minimally invasive solution for addressing many different degenerative spine pathologies. While FESS has demonstrated strong evidence for faster recovery, reduced hospital stays, fewer complications, and potentially lower overall costs, FESS remains underutilized in low-income countries (LICs). This narrative review synthesizes the existing literature to evaluate access to FESS in LICs, highlighting challenges such as a lack of trained neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons, insufficient access to specialized equipment, capital costs, and limited representation in research. A systematic literature search identified only a handful of relevant studies, underscoring the scarcity of data on FESS in LICs. Findings reveal stark disparities in training opportunities and equipment availability, with less than 25% of LIC facilities equipped with the essential tools. This review advocates for international collaboration, increased funding, cost reduction, and targeted research to bridge these gaps. Innovative solutions such as virtual training platforms may help overcome current limitations. Addressing these challenges is essential to leveraging FESS’s potential to mitigate the burden of spinal disorders in LICs and advance global health equity.

Background/Objectives: Rates of degenerative spinal pathology are increasing, driving interest in minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques that facilitate faster recovery. Full endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) and biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (BELD) offer reduced tissue disruption, but comparative outcomes versus non-endoscopic MIS and optimal patient selection remain unclear. This systematic review examines pre-operative characteristics and post-operative outcomes of endoscopic lumbar microdiscectomy (ELMD) compared to MIS and open techniques. Methods: A PRISMA-guided search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and hand searches through 31 September 2024 identified studies on lumbar spinal surgery using endoscopic techniques, restricted to level 1a/b and 2a evidence. Articles were subgrouped by surgery type, with this analysis focusing on ELMD. Data extraction included risk-of-bias assessment, and meta-analysis was performed using multivariate mixed-effects regression. Pre-operative patient characteristics and post-operative outcomes for endoscopic lumbar microdiscectomy (ELMD) were directly compared to both open microdiscectomy and minimally invasive non-endoscopic microdiscectomy (MIS) techniques. Within the ELMD cohort, we further analyzed differences between full endoscopic (FELD) and biportal endoscopic (BELD) approaches, as well as between transforaminal and interlaminar access routes. Results: Of 6891 articles, 5469 unique titles/abstracts were screened, yielding 87 studies (3238 patients) for final synthesis. Compared to open microdiscectomy, ELMD patients were more often male, younger, of lower BMI, and had more comorbidities. They typically presented with shorter symptom duration and predominant radiculopathy. ELMD was performed most at L3–L4 and L4–L5. Post-operatively, ELMD patients had significantly lower VAS Leg Pain scores at 1 day and 1 year and reduced recurrence rates. ELMD was associated with lower recurrence rates and correspondingly lower revision surgery rates, with dural tears and wound infections trending lower compared to open surgery. Compared to non-endoscopic MIS, pre- and post-operative characteristics were similar. BELD patients more often had longer symptom duration, motor weakness, and hyporeflexia than FELD patients. Conclusions: ELMD patients demonstrate favorable pain relief and reduced recurrence versus open surgery, with outcomes comparable to MIS. These findings support ELMD as a less invasive alternative within the MIS spectrum.

Minimally invasive surgical approaches to the spine that leverage indirect decompression are gaining increasing popularity. While there is excellent literature on the value of indirect decompression, there are limitations to this procedure. Specifically, in patients with severe stenosis and neurogenic claudication, there is a concern among many surgeons regarding the adequacy of indirect decompression alone. In these cases, the lateral approach is often abandoned in favor of an open posterior or posterior minimally invasive approach. Unfortunately, some of the distinct benefits of the direct lateral approach are then lost. Here, we present the case of a 58-year-old male who underwent an L4-L5 lateral interbody fusion with an endoscopic ipsi-contra decompression to achieve both direct and indirect treatment of severe neuroforaminal and central stenosis. From this strategy, this patient had complete pre-operative symptom resolution and was able to return to work immediately after surgery without significant restriction. Combining the benefits of direct and indirect using an ultra-minimally invasive decompressive approach offers a potential solution.

Background: Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is an established minimally invasive approach for degenerative spinal conditions. Advances in instrumentation and visualization have expanded its application to spinal tumor resection. This review synthesizes reported clinical outcomes and technical considerations of ESS for primary spinal tumors. Methods: PubMed was queried from 2000 to 2025 for studies reporting endoscopic resection of primary spinal tumors. Studies involving metastatic disease or non-resective interventions were excluded. Data were descriptively analyzed given heterogeneity and limited sample size. Results: Eleven patients across seven studies were included (mean age = 50.3 years). Pathologies comprised schwannoma (n = 5), meningioma (n = 3), osteoid osteoma (n = 2), and Ewing sarcoma (n = 1). Seven tumors were intradural extramedullary (63.6%) and four were extradural (36.4%); no intramedullary lesions were included. Of the seven intradural cases, one was performed via uniportal full-endoscopic technique, one via biportal endoscopy, and five via tubular retractor-assisted endoscopy. Across all eleven patients, gross total resection was achieved in 90.9% of cases. Gross total resection was achieved in 100% of cases in which it was the operative intent (10/10); the remaining case was a planned biopsy of recurrent Ewing sarcoma. One transient postoperative lower extremity weakness was reported; no cerebrospinal fluid leaks, reoperations, or perioperative deaths occurred. No recurrences were observed across a mean follow-up of 21.9 months (range 4–48 months), though this duration may be insufficient to assess long-term recurrence for slow-growing tumors such as meningioma and schwannoma. Conclusions: ESS of primary spinal tumors appears feasible and safe in carefully selected cases, particularly for small, well-circumscribed lesions in favorable anatomical locations. Intradural resection introduced distinct technical challenges, including irrigation management and dural closure, which influence platform selection. These findings are limited by small sample size, short follow-up, and likely publication bias. ESS should be considered an emerging minimally invasive option rather than a replacement for established microsurgical approaches. Prospective comparative studies are needed to better define its role in spinal oncology.

Background/Objectives: SPINEHealthie is a smartphone-based application enabling remote patient monitoring, care delivery and standardized collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This registry-based analysis evaluates patient satisfaction with the platform across a large, heterogeneous spine surgery cohort. Methods: A total of 1729 thoracolumbar spine surgery cases were eligible for analysis. Among these, 881 (50.9%) completed the in-app feedback survey and constituted the primary feedback cohort. The global app experience was categorized as “Very Good” or “Poor”. Clinical outcomes, i.e., the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were assessed at baseline and in the postoperative period; Δ denotes the change from baseline to two weeks postoperation. Results: Among feedback responders, 800 patients (90.8%) rated their app experience as “Very Good”, while 80.8% of 639 patients with surgical outcome data reported that the surgery met their expectations. However, app experience and surgical outcome expectations were assessed using different items at different postoperative time points. Among patients whose surgery did not meet expectations, 84.6% rated their app experience as “Very Good”. Patients with a “Very Good” app-experience rating demonstrated significantly greater improvement in back pain (ΔVAS Back pain 2.94 vs. 2.13, p = 0.027), leg pain (ΔVAS Leg pain 3.16 vs. 2.14, p = 0.019) and disability (ΔODI 11.00 vs. 2.41, p < 0.001). In the primary model, older age, shorter follow-up duration and smaller ODI improvement were associated with an unfavorable app experience; only the association with age remained consistent across sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Among feedback responders, SPINEHealthie was associated with a high proportion of favorable global app-experience ratings. Favorable app-experience ratings remained high, even among patients with unmet surgical expectations or failure to achieve the exploratory two-week ODI-improvement threshold, suggesting that perceived platform value is not solely explained by surgical outcome. Older patients and those with limited functional recovery were identified as subgroups that may benefit from targeted onboarding and engagement strategies.