Juan Álvarez de Mon-Montoliú, Juan Castro-Toral, César Bonome-González, Manuel González-Murillo
{"title":"内窥镜脊柱手术学习曲线的meta分析:对手术结果的影响。","authors":"Juan Álvarez de Mon-Montoliú, Juan Castro-Toral, César Bonome-González, Manuel González-Murillo","doi":"10.1177/21925682241307634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the learning curve in endoscopic spinal surgery, including the time to mastery and challenges faced by novice surgeons, to improve learning and surgical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data extraction included the learning curve period and a comparison of surgeons with more experience or late period of the learning curve (late) and surgeons with less experience and in the early period of the learning curve (early) with respect to demographic, surgical, hospitalization, functional, and complication variables. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This meta-analysis included 16 studies (n = 1902). The average number of cases required to reach the learning curve was 32.5 ± 10.5. The uniportal technique required fewer cases (30.1 ± 10.2) than biportal technique (38.7 ± 10.3). There were no significant differences in demographic variables, operation level, or duration of symptoms between the advanced and novice surgeons. Advanced surgeons showed better outcomes in VAS leg pain at less than 6 months (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.01-0.34) and >6 months (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.27), as well as VAS back pain at > 6 months (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.29). The incidence of total complications was significantly higher in the novice surgeon group. The specific complications did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The average number of cases required to reach the learning curve was 32.5 ± 10.5. Experienced surgeons had shorter surgery and fluoroscopy times, better outcomes in leg and back pain, and a lower incidence of complications than novice surgeons.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"21925682241307634"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11622208/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-Analysis of Learning Curve in Endoscopic Spinal Surgery: Impact on Surgical Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Juan Álvarez de Mon-Montoliú, Juan Castro-Toral, César Bonome-González, Manuel González-Murillo\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/21925682241307634\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the learning curve in endoscopic spinal surgery, including the time to mastery and challenges faced by novice surgeons, to improve learning and surgical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data extraction included the learning curve period and a comparison of surgeons with more experience or late period of the learning curve (late) and surgeons with less experience and in the early period of the learning curve (early) with respect to demographic, surgical, hospitalization, functional, and complication variables. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This meta-analysis included 16 studies (n = 1902). The average number of cases required to reach the learning curve was 32.5 ± 10.5. The uniportal technique required fewer cases (30.1 ± 10.2) than biportal technique (38.7 ± 10.3). There were no significant differences in demographic variables, operation level, or duration of symptoms between the advanced and novice surgeons. Advanced surgeons showed better outcomes in VAS leg pain at less than 6 months (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.01-0.34) and >6 months (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.27), as well as VAS back pain at > 6 months (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.29). The incidence of total complications was significantly higher in the novice surgeon group. The specific complications did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The average number of cases required to reach the learning curve was 32.5 ± 10.5. Experienced surgeons had shorter surgery and fluoroscopy times, better outcomes in leg and back pain, and a lower incidence of complications than novice surgeons.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"21925682241307634\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11622208/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241307634\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241307634","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究设计:系统评价和荟萃分析。目的:本荟萃分析旨在评估内窥镜脊柱手术的学习曲线,包括新手外科医生掌握的时间和面临的挑战,以提高学习和手术效果。方法:数据提取包括学习曲线期,比较经验丰富或学习曲线后期(late)的外科医生与经验较少、学习曲线早期(early)的外科医生在人口学、手术、住院、功能和并发症等变量方面的差异。采用Review Manager 5.4.1软件进行统计分析。结果:本荟萃分析包括16项研究(n = 1902)。达到学习曲线所需的平均病例数为32.5±10.5例。单门静脉技术所需病例数(30.1±10.2)例少于双门静脉技术(38.7±10.3)例。在人口统计学变量、手术水平或症状持续时间方面,高级外科医生和新手外科医生没有显著差异。高级外科医生显示,在VAS下肢疼痛不到6个月(SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.01-0.34)和>6个月(SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.27)以及>6个月的VAS背部疼痛(SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.29)方面,预后更好。总并发症的发生率在新手组明显更高。两组间特异性并发症发生率无明显差异。结论:达到学习曲线所需的平均例数为32.5±10.5。经验丰富的外科医生比新手外科医生手术和透视时间更短,腿部和背部疼痛的治疗效果更好,并发症发生率更低。
Meta-Analysis of Learning Curve in Endoscopic Spinal Surgery: Impact on Surgical Outcomes.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the learning curve in endoscopic spinal surgery, including the time to mastery and challenges faced by novice surgeons, to improve learning and surgical outcomes.
Methods: Data extraction included the learning curve period and a comparison of surgeons with more experience or late period of the learning curve (late) and surgeons with less experience and in the early period of the learning curve (early) with respect to demographic, surgical, hospitalization, functional, and complication variables. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 software.
Results: This meta-analysis included 16 studies (n = 1902). The average number of cases required to reach the learning curve was 32.5 ± 10.5. The uniportal technique required fewer cases (30.1 ± 10.2) than biportal technique (38.7 ± 10.3). There were no significant differences in demographic variables, operation level, or duration of symptoms between the advanced and novice surgeons. Advanced surgeons showed better outcomes in VAS leg pain at less than 6 months (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.01-0.34) and >6 months (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.27), as well as VAS back pain at > 6 months (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.29). The incidence of total complications was significantly higher in the novice surgeon group. The specific complications did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.
Conclusions: The average number of cases required to reach the learning curve was 32.5 ± 10.5. Experienced surgeons had shorter surgery and fluoroscopy times, better outcomes in leg and back pain, and a lower incidence of complications than novice surgeons.
期刊介绍:
Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).