Comparison of Learning Curves and Clinical Outcomes in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery Versus Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Surgery: A Cumulative Sum Analysis.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Pain Research Pub Date : 2025-02-06 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JPR.S485283
Shuo Yuan, Ruiyuan Chen, Yuqi Mei, Ning Fan, Tianyi Wang, Aobo Wang, Peng Du, Yu Xi, Lei Zang
{"title":"Comparison of Learning Curves and Clinical Outcomes in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery Versus Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Surgery: A Cumulative Sum Analysis.","authors":"Shuo Yuan, Ruiyuan Chen, Yuqi Mei, Ning Fan, Tianyi Wang, Aobo Wang, Peng Du, Yu Xi, Lei Zang","doi":"10.2147/JPR.S485283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Endoscopic spine surgery has been widely performed to treat degenerative spinal diseases to mitigate the risks and complications associated with traditional open surgery. However, endoscopic procedures pose challenges, including a limited field of view and a restricted operating space, which can affect the surgeon's learning curve. This study aimed to evaluate the learning curves for unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (UBESS) and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) by performing cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis and to assess their efficacies in managing degenerative spinal diseases.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included 100 consecutive patients who underwent PTES and 100 consecutive patients who received UBESS. CUSUM analysis was conducted to assess the learning curve, with cutoff points used to categorize the early and late phases. These two phases were analyzed in terms of differences in operative time, hospital stay, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Additionally, PROMs between the PTES and UBESS groups, which were performed by the same surgeon, were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CUSUM analysis revealed that the operative time for PTES and UBESS decreased after 35 and 28 cases, respectively. Both early- and late-phase cases exhibited significant improvement in all PROMs postoperatively. Furthermore, PROMs did not differ between patients who underwent PTES and those who underwent UBESS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both procedures achieved comparable clinical outcomes with low complication incidences. However, achieving proficiency in PTES required a learning curve of at least 35 cases, whereas that in UBESS required a minimum of 28 cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":16661,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"631-642"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11809230/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S485283","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Endoscopic spine surgery has been widely performed to treat degenerative spinal diseases to mitigate the risks and complications associated with traditional open surgery. However, endoscopic procedures pose challenges, including a limited field of view and a restricted operating space, which can affect the surgeon's learning curve. This study aimed to evaluate the learning curves for unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (UBESS) and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) by performing cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis and to assess their efficacies in managing degenerative spinal diseases.

Patients and methods: This retrospective cohort study included 100 consecutive patients who underwent PTES and 100 consecutive patients who received UBESS. CUSUM analysis was conducted to assess the learning curve, with cutoff points used to categorize the early and late phases. These two phases were analyzed in terms of differences in operative time, hospital stay, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Additionally, PROMs between the PTES and UBESS groups, which were performed by the same surgeon, were compared.

Results: CUSUM analysis revealed that the operative time for PTES and UBESS decreased after 35 and 28 cases, respectively. Both early- and late-phase cases exhibited significant improvement in all PROMs postoperatively. Furthermore, PROMs did not differ between patients who underwent PTES and those who underwent UBESS.

Conclusion: Both procedures achieved comparable clinical outcomes with low complication incidences. However, achieving proficiency in PTES required a learning curve of at least 35 cases, whereas that in UBESS required a minimum of 28 cases.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单侧双门静脉内窥镜脊柱手术与经皮经椎间孔内窥镜手术的学习曲线和临床结果的比较:累积和分析。
目的:内窥镜脊柱手术已被广泛用于治疗退行性脊柱疾病,以减轻传统开放手术相关的风险和并发症。然而,内窥镜手术带来了挑战,包括有限的视野和有限的操作空间,这可能会影响外科医生的学习曲线。本研究旨在通过累积和(CUSUM)分析来评估单侧双门静脉内窥镜脊柱手术(UBESS)和经皮经椎间孔内窥镜手术(PTES)的学习曲线,并评估它们在治疗退行性脊柱疾病中的疗效。患者和方法:本回顾性队列研究包括100例连续接受PTES的患者和100例连续接受UBESS的患者。使用CUSUM分析来评估学习曲线,并使用截止点对早期和晚期阶段进行分类。分析这两个阶段在手术时间、住院时间、并发症和患者报告结果测量(PROMs)方面的差异。此外,比较由同一外科医生进行的PTES组和UBESS组之间的prom。结果:CUSUM分析显示,PTES和UBESS手术时间分别缩短了35例和28例。早期和晚期病例术后均有明显改善。此外,在接受PTES和uess的患者之间,PROMs没有差异。结论:两种手术均取得了相当的临床效果,并发症发生率低。然而,熟练掌握PTES需要至少35例的学习曲线,而在UBESS中至少需要28例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pain Research
Journal of Pain Research CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
411
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Pain Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that welcomes laboratory and clinical findings in the fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Original research, reviews, symposium reports, hypothesis formation and commentaries are all considered for publication. Additionally, the journal now welcomes the submission of pain-policy-related editorials and commentaries, particularly in regard to ethical, regulatory, forensic, and other legal issues in pain medicine, and to the education of pain practitioners and researchers.
期刊最新文献
The Effectiveness of Fu's Subcutaneous Needling for Residual Pain After Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation in Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Randomized Clinical Trial Protocol [Letter]. Spinal Cord Stimulators' Displacement: Systematic Review and Single-Institution Case Series with Anchoring Technique. Transcriptome Changes of ACC in IBS Rats Induced by Electroacupuncture: Exploration of Mechanism and Clinical Significance [Letter]. A Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion Combined with Pulsed Radiofrequency in Preventing Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial [Letter]. Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Traditional Chinese Exercises in the Treatment of Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis [Letter].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1