Shuo Yuan, Ruiyuan Chen, Yuqi Mei, Ning Fan, Tianyi Wang, Aobo Wang, Peng Du, Yu Xi, Lei Zang
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Comparison of Learning Curves and Clinical Outcomes in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spinal Surgery Versus Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Surgery: A Cumulative Sum Analysis.
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.
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.