A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes and Technical Considerations: Endoscopic Spine Surgery for Primary Spinal Tumors.

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.