Chan Justin P, Olson Thomas, Gabriel Beshoy, Hashmi Sohaib, Wu Hao-Hua, Bow Hansen, Lee Yu-Po, Bhatia Nitin, Oh Michael, Park Don Y
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California Irvine, 101 The City Drive South, Pavillion III, Building 29A, Orange, CA 92868, USA.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, 1250 16(th) St. Santa Monica, CA 90404, USA.
Spine J. 2025 Jan 27. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2025.01.004.
Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is rapidly emerging as a viable minimally invasive technique to successfully treat symptomatic degenerative spinal conditions. Widespread adoption has been limited in part due to the learning curve.
To systematically review the learning curve for uniportal and biportal ESS and compare the 2 techniques.
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines.
About 29 studies were included with 18 studies investigating uniportal learning curves and 11 biportal studies. There were 1,493 patients across all uniportal studies. There was a total of 1,005 patients across all biportal studies.
Number of patients, technique type, patient reported outcomes, complications, operative time before the learning curve threshold, operative time after learning curve threshold, number of cases required to meet threshold, number of surgeons in the study, and cases per surgeon were collected and analyzed.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Medline, and Embase from 2000 to present date. Data was extracted by 3 independent reviewers.
The learning curve studies were reviewed and summarized. The overall median number of cases to reach the learning curve threshold was significantly less in uniportal vs biportal studies (20 vs. 37.5, p=.0463). When stratifying by various procedures, there was no significant difference between the techniques with number of cases required or improvement of operative time. Operative time for biportal discectomies decreased by a significantly greater amount vs uniportal. (44.5% vs. 21.4%, p=.0332).
The learning curve literature for ESS was systematically reviewed and ways to overcome the learning curve were discussed. The overall median number of cases for the learning curve was significantly fewer in uniportal vs biportal but the improvement in operative time was significantly greater with biportal discectomies, typically the entry level procedure by novice surgeons. Overcoming the learning curve for ESS is a critical factor to widespread adoption and understanding it may aid surgeons in progressing to proficiency while mitigating the risk of complications.
内镜脊柱手术(ESS)正迅速成为一种可行的微创技术,用于成功治疗有症状的退行性脊柱疾病。由于学习曲线的原因,其广泛应用受到一定限制。
系统回顾单通道和双通道ESS的学习曲线,并比较这两种技术。
研究设计/地点:基于PRISMA指南的系统评价。
纳入约29项研究,其中18项研究调查单通道学习曲线,11项为双通道研究。所有单通道研究共有1493例患者。所有双通道研究共有1005例患者。
收集并分析患者数量、技术类型、患者报告的结局、并发症、学习曲线阈值之前的手术时间、学习曲线阈值之后的手术时间、达到阈值所需的病例数、研究中的外科医生数量以及每位外科医生的病例数。
使用PubMed、Medline和Embase对2000年至今的文献进行全面检索。数据由3名独立评审员提取。
对学习曲线研究进行了回顾和总结。单通道研究与双通道研究相比,达到学习曲线阈值的总体病例数中位数显著更少(20对37.5,p = 0.0463)。按各种手术方式分层时,两种技术在所需病例数或手术时间改善方面无显著差异。双通道椎间盘切除术的手术时间下降幅度明显大于单通道(44.5%对21.4%,p = 0.0332)。
系统回顾了ESS的学习曲线文献,并讨论了克服学习曲线的方法。单通道与双通道相比,学习曲线的总体病例数中位数显著更少,但双通道椎间盘切除术的手术时间改善明显更大,而椎间盘切除术通常是新手外科医生的入门级手术。克服ESS的学习曲线是广泛应用的关键因素,了解这一点可能有助于外科医生提高熟练程度,同时降低并发症风险。