Comparative study of the learning curves for percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopy techniques.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Weidong Guo, Shikong Guo, Xiaoping Zhang, Weiliang Zhang, Guifeng Xia, Bo Liao
{"title":"Comparative study of the learning curves for percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy and unilateral biportal endoscopy techniques.","authors":"Weidong Guo, Shikong Guo, Xiaoping Zhang, Weiliang Zhang, Guifeng Xia, Bo Liao","doi":"10.1186/s12893-025-02951-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques, such as Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Lumbar Discectomy (PEID) and Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE), have been developed to reduce surgical morbidity and enhance patient recovery. Although both techniques demonstrate promising clinical outcomes, the learning curves required for surgeons to achieve proficiency with these methods remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the learning curves of PEID and UBE in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of 173 patients who underwent either PEID (n = 94) or UBE (n = 79), performed by two independent surgeons between January 2020 and January 2022. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years, diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation, and had no previous spinal surgeries at the affected level. Metrics analyzed included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, complication rates, and clinical outcomes, assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PEID group demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (99.96 ± 34.74 min vs. 116.52 ± 47.20 min, P < 0.05) and less blood loss (20.85 ± 11.06 ml vs. 80.19 ± 22.81 ml, P < 0.01) compared to the UBE group. Both techniques showed significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores postoperatively, with no significant differences between the groups at any follow-up points. Learning curve analysis revealed that operative times for PEID stabilized at approximately 70 min after about 40 cases, while UBE stabilized at around 65 min after approximately 35 cases. Complication rates were low, and patient satisfaction was high in both groups. According to the Modified MacNab criteria, 83% of patients in the PEID group and 79.7% in the UBE group achieved excellent outcomes, while only 5.3% and 3.8% of patients experienced fair or poor outcomes in the PEID and UBE groups, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both PEID and UBE are effective minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, offering comparable clinical outcomes and low complication rates. However, PEID is associated with shorter operative times and reduced intraoperative blood loss. Understanding the learning curves of these techniques is crucial for surgeons to improve proficiency and optimize patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":"25 1","pages":"210"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12079865/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-02951-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques, such as Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Lumbar Discectomy (PEID) and Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy (UBE), have been developed to reduce surgical morbidity and enhance patient recovery. Although both techniques demonstrate promising clinical outcomes, the learning curves required for surgeons to achieve proficiency with these methods remain unclear.

Objective: To compare the learning curves of PEID and UBE in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 173 patients who underwent either PEID (n = 94) or UBE (n = 79), performed by two independent surgeons between January 2020 and January 2022. Eligible patients were aged 18-75 years, diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation, and had no previous spinal surgeries at the affected level. Metrics analyzed included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, complication rates, and clinical outcomes, assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.

Results: The PEID group demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (99.96 ± 34.74 min vs. 116.52 ± 47.20 min, P < 0.05) and less blood loss (20.85 ± 11.06 ml vs. 80.19 ± 22.81 ml, P < 0.01) compared to the UBE group. Both techniques showed significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores postoperatively, with no significant differences between the groups at any follow-up points. Learning curve analysis revealed that operative times for PEID stabilized at approximately 70 min after about 40 cases, while UBE stabilized at around 65 min after approximately 35 cases. Complication rates were low, and patient satisfaction was high in both groups. According to the Modified MacNab criteria, 83% of patients in the PEID group and 79.7% in the UBE group achieved excellent outcomes, while only 5.3% and 3.8% of patients experienced fair or poor outcomes in the PEID and UBE groups, respectively.

Conclusion: Both PEID and UBE are effective minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation, offering comparable clinical outcomes and low complication rates. However, PEID is associated with shorter operative times and reduced intraoperative blood loss. Understanding the learning curves of these techniques is crucial for surgeons to improve proficiency and optimize patient outcomes.

经皮内窥镜椎板间腰椎间盘切除术与单侧双门静脉内窥镜技术学习曲线的比较研究。
背景:微创脊柱手术技术,如经皮内窥镜椎间盘切除术(PEID)和单侧双门静脉内窥镜(UBE),已经发展到减少手术发病率和提高患者康复。尽管这两种技术都显示出良好的临床效果,但外科医生熟练掌握这些方法所需的学习曲线仍不清楚。目的:比较PEID与UBE治疗腰椎间盘突出症的学习曲线。方法:我们对173例接受PEID (n = 94)或UBE (n = 79)的患者进行了回顾性分析,这些患者由两名独立的外科医生在2020年1月至2022年1月期间进行了手术。符合条件的患者年龄在18-75岁之间,诊断为腰椎间盘突出症,并且在受影响的水平没有既往的脊柱手术。分析的指标包括手术时间、术中出血量、术后恢复、并发症发生率和临床结果,使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)和Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)评分进行评估。结果:PEID组手术时间明显缩短(99.96±34.74 min vs 116.52±47.20 min)。结论:PEID和UBE均是治疗腰椎间盘突出症的有效微创技术,临床疗效相当,并发症发生率低。然而,PEID与缩短手术时间和减少术中出血量有关。了解这些技术的学习曲线对于外科医生提高熟练程度和优化患者预后至关重要。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Surgery
BMC Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
391
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: BMC Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on surgical research, training, and practice.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信