Abstract
Our research examines the learning curves of various minimally invasive lumbar surgeries to determine the benefits and challenges they pose to both surgeons and patients. The advent of microsurgical techniques since the 1960s, including advances in fluoroscopic navigation and intraoperative computed tomography, has significantly shifted spinal surgery from open to minimally invasive methods. This study critically evaluates surgical duration, intraoperative conversions to open surgery, and complications as primary parameters to gauge these learning curves. Through a comprehensive literature search up to March 2024, involving databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, this paper identifies a steep learning curve associated with these surgeries. Despite their proven advantages in reducing recovery time and surgical trauma, these procedures require surgeons to master advanced technology and equipment, which can directly impact patient outcomes. The study underscores the need for well-defined learning curves to facilitate efficient training and enhance surgical proficiency, especially for novice surgeons. Moreover, it addresses the implications of technology on surgical accuracy and the subsequent effects on complication rates, providing insights into the complex dynamics of adopting new surgical innovations in spinal health care.
-
Keywords: Minimally invasive surgical procedures, Spine, Learning curve, Complications
INTRODUCTION
Since the mid-1960s, when Yasargil introduced the surgical microscope and microsurgical techniques from cranial to spinal surgery [
1,
2], the field has seen a significant shift from open to minimally invasive procedures [
3]. Advances in both hardware and software have played crucial roles in this transformation. Historically, spinal surgery methods have evolved dramatically, from an open lumbar laminectomy in the United States was performed in 1829 [
4], to the use of modern endoscopes that access the spine through tiny 2–3 mm incisions [
5]. Additionally, the field has progressed from relying on intraoperative lateral x-rays for evaluating pedicle screw placement [
6] to using fluoroscopic navigation [
7] and now, intraoperative computed tomography (CT) scans for precise image guidance [
8]. These rapid technological advancements have driven the development of minimally invasive spinal surgery.
In 1997, Foley and Smith introduced microendoscopic discectomy (MED), offering a minimally invasive solution for treating herniated discs [
9]. This was followed by Kambin and Hijikata’s attempts at percutaneous discectomy, marking a new stage in endoscopic spinal surgery [
5,
10]. In spinal fusion, Mathews et al. [
11] reported on laparoscopic approaches for anterior lumbar interbody fusion in 1995. Since then, several minimally invasive fusion techniques have emerged, including lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF), and endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF). These methods aim to reduce recovery time, surgical trauma, and postoperative complications compared to traditional open surgery. Despite their benefits, minimally invasive spine surgeries present a steeper learning curve for surgeons compared to traditional open procedures.
This study investigates whether the pursuit of minimally invasive techniques benefits both patients and surgeons, particularly novice surgeons navigating this evolving landscape. The learning curve, defined as the number of cases or time required for a surgeon to master a technique, is essential for guiding targeted training, identifying early difficulties, and preventing overtraining [
12] (
Fig. 1). A well-defined learning curve helps trainees develop proficiency and achieve competence to perform surgeries independently with reasonable outcomes. However, the learning curve in spinal surgery is complex and lacks a standardized measurement. It can be assessed through graphical inspection, grouping, CUSUM, and regression, each with its own strengths and weaknesses [
13-
15].
Our research evaluates the learning curves of various minimally invasive lumbar surgeries, focusing on parameters such as surgery duration, intraoperative conversions to open surgery, and complications. By examining these parameters, we aim to understand the trends and comprehensive assessment of these learning curves based on perioperative indicators. While minimally invasive techniques offer numerous benefits, including reduced hospital stays and less postoperative pain, they also pose challenges. The reliance on advanced technology and navigation systems requires surgeons to be proficient with these tools. Consequently, a surgeon’s competence directly affects patient outcomes, making training and understanding learning curves even more critical. This paper consolidates research on the learning curve associated with minimally invasive spinal surgery, analyzing data on surgery duration, intraoperative conversions to open surgery, and complications. Based on the results discussion, we integrated relevant reviews from previous studies, providing a comprehensive examination of the learning curve in minimally invasive spinal surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
1. Search Strategy
We conducted a comprehensive electronic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases, encompassing all available literature up to March 2024. Search terms included “learning curve,” “spine,” “minimally invasive,” and “complications.” The detailed search strategy is documented in the
Supplementary data. Both MeSH (medical subject headings) terms and free-text terms were used to enhance search sensitivity. Additionally, we manually searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews to maximize the retrieval of pertinent studies.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria were as follows: the study population consisted of individuals aged 18 and above with degenerative disc diseases, disc herniations, lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), and spinal instability, including spondylolisthesis. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, and retrospec-tive cohort studies related to minimally invasive lumbar surgery were included, excluding case controls, cross-sectional studies, case reports, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Cross-sectional studies and case reports exhibit inherent limitations, including data inaccuracies and a lack of rigor. Relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses are deemed appropriate for inclusion in the discussion. Importantly, results from research articles relying on primary data must be derived from directly related studies. Additionally, studies involving duplicate publication, incomplete or unavailable data, and those where original authors could not be contacted for relevant information were excluded. We did not include multi-level MIS decompression or fusion studies in our analysis due to the significant heterogeneity among the study results, which could potentially skew the overall analysis of learning curve. Patients undergoing revision surgery or planned staged procedures were excluded. Revision surgery was defined as an unintended second surgery due to inadequate surgical technique, anesthesia manipulation, or infection-related complications [
16]. Studies on spinal infections, tumors, and scoliosis were also excluded.
According to the AO Spine MISS Spectrum, minimally invasive spine surgery is a suite of technology-dependent techniques and procedures that reduces local operative tissue damage and systemic surgical stress enabling earlier return to function striving for better outcomes than traditional techniques [
17,
18]. In our study, minimally invasive lumbar spine surgeries divide into following subtypes: (1) Discectomy involves removing a portion of a herniated disc to relieve nerve compression, easing pain and neurological symptoms. (2) Decompression is used to clear obstructions like bone spurs or ligaments that compress nerves, alleviating pain, numbness, and weakness. (3) Spinal fusion connects 2 or more vertebrae with bone grafts and metal instruments, such as screws and rods, to stabilize the spine and prevent painful motion. (4) Foraminotomy enlarges the nerve root exit spaces to decrease nerve pressure and relieve discomfort. (5) Dynamic stabilization uses flexible materials for spinal stabilization. However, robotic technology [
19], augmented reality (AR) [
20], and virtual reality (VR) were considered auxiliary techniques and not the focus of this paper. Finally, minimally invasive lumbar spine surgeries were classified into 3 primary types: discectomy, decompression, and fusion. Results and discussions will elaborate separately on these types. Discectomy and decompression techniques included microscopic, microendoscopic, unilateral biportal endoscopic, or full-endoscopic methods. Decompression techniques incorporated unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD). Fusion procedures included MISTLIF, LLIF, and others. The naming conventions for certain minimally invasive spine surgeries were derived from research conducted by Hofstetter et al. [
21]
Primary outcomes of interest were surgical time and complications. Surgical time was assessed by identifying an asymptote, the case number where the learning curve stabilized. Patients were categorized into early and late groups based on this asymptote, with the early group comprising patients operated on before reaching the asymptote and the late group those after. Complications were broadly categorized approach-related complications and medical complications. Surgical site complications can be classified into intraoperative and postoperative occurrences. Intraoperative issues may include inadvertent durotomies, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks, and direct puncture injuries to nerve roots. Postoperative complications can involve new onset motor or sensory deficits, new radiculopathy, instrument breakage, and excessive removal of facet joints. Postoperative complications included wound and perineural hematoma, superficial skin and wound infections, and suture granulomas. Somatic complications encompassed more severe events such as pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, respiratory distress or failure, and specific complications tied to the surgical approach, such as dura tear, wound infection, and vascular complications [
22]. Reoperation rates were not included in the complications category.
Data collection was independently performed by 2 researchers (KW and ZH). We recorded details such as authors, country, region, hospital, publication year, study design, surgical technique, disease, time span, patient volume, asymptote achievement/surgical time variability, complications, and the number of conversions to open surgery. Articles without explicit information on region and hospital were categorized under the primary author’s affiliated region and institution. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion with a third researcher (QY). The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool [
23] was employed to assess the risk-of-bias in RCTs, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) [
24] was used to grade the quality of retrospective cohort studies. The NOS is a widely utilized quality assessment tool for casecontrol and cohort studies. It evaluates these studies through 3 main modules consisting of 8 items, focusing on the selection of study populations, comparability, and assessment of exposure and outcomes. The NOS utilizes a star system for semi-quantitative evaluation of literature quality. Comparability can receive a maximum of 2 stars, while other items can earn up to 1 star each, yielding a maximum score of 9 stars. A higher score reflects superior study quality. Assessments using the Cochrane and NOS were conducted independently by 3 authors, followed by a synthesis of their findings. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the Mann-Kendall test to determine whether values exhibited a monotonic increasing or decreasing trend over time. Surgical times were divided into preasymptote and postasymptote categories, with linear relationships between surgical time, publication year, and asymptote status evaluated separately. In statistical outcomes, a z-value greater than 0 indicated an upward trend, whereas a z-value less than 0 indicated a downward trend.
We used statistical methods to investigate whether the frequency of procedures influenced the rate at which novices reached proficiency asymptotes. Data from articles containing both the total number of patients treated by novices and the duration of patient exposure (in months) were collected to calculate their ratio, measured as individuals per month. Asymptotic values represented proficiency. Regression statistical methods determined whether the frequency of procedures among novices impacted the rate at which they approached proficiency asymptotes across different procedures. For accuracy, only articles focused on individual novices were included, as articles involving multiple individuals performing procedures introduced uncertainty regarding procedural frequency. Articles providing duration only in years were assumed to start from January.
RESULTS
1. Identification and Selection of Studies
A total of 1,999 studies were initially identified, and after removing 436 duplicates, 1,563 potentially relevant studies were reviewed. Following title and abstract screening, 1,483 studies were excluded. Upon full-text review of the remaining studies, 59 articles describing the learning curves of minimally invasive spinal surgeries were included in the final analysis [
25-
83]. A flowchart detailing the study selection process is shown in
Fig. 2.
Supplementary Table 1 provides a quality assessment of each study based on the NOS. Most of the 58 retrospective or prospective studies scored above 6 stars, indicating decent quality. Additionally, the evaluation of the only included RCT using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool is presented in
Supplementary Fig. 1, showing good quality results.
For novice surgeons, fusion surgery initially takes a long time, but as surgeons become more skilled, the time needed significantly decreases and levels off. In contrast, the difference in surgical time between MED and decompression is not as significant.
Fig. 3 and
Tables 1–3 illustrate how surgical time varies with increasing case numbers across different surgical techniques.
MED’s asymptote typically ranges from 25–30 cases, while for decompression, aside from lumbar endoscopic ULBD (LEULBD) with a 100-case asymptote, most asymptotes fall between 40–45 cases. For fusion surgery, the learning curve flattens after performing 31 to 35 cases. Once this level of experience is reached, interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy (lELD) has the shortest surgical time for MED, while unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar discetomy (UBE-LD) takes the longest. For decompression procedures, micro-ULBD is the fastest, and UBEULBD is the slowest. LE-ULBD has a surgical time notably shorter than UBE-ULBD, but longer than micro-ULBD. Among fusion techniques, mini-anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) takes the longest, while LLIF is the fastest among other fusion methods. Based on our comparative analysis of the average surgery times in case studies involving learning curves, we found that UBE-TLIF and ELIF, although newer minimally invasive surgical techniques, do not show a significant advantage in average surgery time during the learning curve compared to the traditional minimally invasive LLIF technique.
Studies of the countries represented in this article about discectomy and decompression found that India had the highest proportion (43%) among microendoscopic techniques. For fullendoscopic techniques, China and South Korea accounted for the largest shares, with 25.9% and 29.6%, respectively. China and South Korea also had the highest proportion in unilateral biportal endoscopic techniques, at 25% and 50%. In microscopic surgery techniques, the United States had a share of 33.3%. Varying attitudes and professional capabilities towards specific minimally invasive spine techniques across countries or regions may contribute to differences in the learning curves of beginners adopting new technologies [
84,
85].
To investigate whether there are differences in the study of operative times within the learning curve of the same surgical technique based on the year of publication. The Mann-Kendall test (
Supplementary Table 2) indicating that only MIS-TLIF shows a significant negative monotonic trend (z=-0.73, z=-0.24), though not statistically significant (p=0.46, p=0.81). Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD) (p=0.76, p=0.54) and lELD (p=0.26, p=0.99) do not show significant negative monotonic trends or statistical significance. This suggests no statistically significant relationship between surgical time and year for various minimally invasive techniques.
Supplementary Table 3 shows the results of regression analysis for the impact of procedure frequency on the rate of reaching proficiency asymptotes. Due to limitations in data availability, only TELD, lELD, MISTLIF, and MED were considered. Among these, only TELD (p=0.031) exhibits a significant correlation between procedure frequency and the rate of reaching proficiency asymptotes. lELD (p=0.59), MIS-TLIF (p=0.26), and MED (p=0.50) do not display any statistically significant correlation.
1) Discectomy techniques
Thirty-one studies on discectomy techniques were included (
Table 1). These comprised one study on microdiscectomy (52 patients); 6 studies on MED (419 patients); 15 studies on TELD (1,122 patients); 8 studies on lELD (493 patients); and 2 studies on UBE-LD (187 patients).
Microdiscectomy, one of the earliest techniques, has the fewest learning curve-related studies, with only 1 paper reporting a 10% complication rate (3 of 30). Notably, 66.7% of these complications were dural tears resulting in CSF leaks.
MED remains widely used, with an overall complication rate of 7.6% (26 of 344). Dural tears were the most common complication (50% of cases). Other frequent complications included inadvertent removal of the facet joint (5 of 26). Jhala et al. [
75] reported 41% (5 of 12) of total complications occurring before 25 cases, while Rong et al. [
77] reported all complications occurring in the first 20 cases. UBE-LD had an overall complication rate of 4.6% (9 of 187), with dural tears constituting 33.3% (3 of 9) of these. For full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy, the overall complication rate for TELD was 1.9% (12 of 644), with dural tears, delayed wound healing/infection, hypoesthesia, nerve root injuries, and excessive facet resection at 16.7% (2 of 12), 8.3% (1 of 12), 8.3% (1 of 12), 41.6% (5 of 12), and 16.7% (2 of 12), respectively. lELD had an overall complication rate of 5.7% (12 of 210), with dural tears constituting 66.7% (8 of 12). Other complications such as delayed wound healing/infection, hypoesthesia, nerve root injuries, and excessive facet resection were not reported.
2) Decompression techniques
Twelve studies on decompression techniques were included (
Table 2). These comprised 4 studies on micro-ULBD (547 patients); 2 studies on MED-ULBD (537 patients); 3 studies on LE-ULBD (384 patients); and 3 studies on UBE-ULBD (199 patients).
Overall complication rates were highest for micro-ULBD (12.4%), followed by LE-ULBD (10.7%), UBE-ULBD (6.5%), and MED-ULBD (3%). LE-ULBD had the highest rate of excessive facet resection (25.9%), while dural tears were most common in micro-ULBD (71.8%), MED-ULBD (56.2%), and UBEULBD (46.2%).
3) Fusion techniques
Nineteen studies on fusion techniques were included (
Table 3), encompassing 10 studies on MIS-TLIF (874 patients); 5 studies on LLIF (228 patients); 1 study on UBE-TLlF (57 patients); 1 study on mini-ALIF (127 patients); and 2 studies on ELIF (129 patients).
MIS-TLIF, one of the earliest minimally invasive spinal fusion techniques, showed an overall complication rate of 9% (80 of 874). Rates for dural tears, CSF leakage, delayed wound healing/infection, and hypoesthesia were 18% (14 of 80), 3% (2 of 80), 10% (8 of of 80), and 1% (1 of 80), respectively. Other complications such as epidural hematomas, hardware misplacement (cage/pedicle screw), and pseudarthrosis were 5% (4 of 80), 20% (16 of 80), and 11% (9 of 80), respectively. Other fusion techniques— LLIF, UBE-TLlF, mini-ALIF, and ELIF—had overall complication rates of 25% (57 of 228), 5% (3 of 57), 25% (32 of 127), and 5% (7 of 129), respectively. Each technique had its unique complications, with LLIF having urinary retention and urinary tract infection rates of 32% (9 of 28) and 3% (1 of 28), respectively.
4) Foraminotomy
Our study’s examination of the learning curves associated with various minimally invasive spinal surgeries, though thorough, regrettably did not retrieve enough analysis for the research related to the foraminotomy. By omitting the analysis for foraminotomy, we might not fully understand the nuances and potential challenges new surgeons face with this technique. During retrieving of the relevant literature, there is only one published by Alessandro and colleagues examined the learning curve of 2 spine surgeons who used lumbar foraminotomy in 200 patients with lumbar disc herniation and foraminal stenosis. Their study revealed that the median operative time was 56 minutes before the surgeons reached the learning curve, decreasing to 37 minutes after surpassing it (>100 patients). Initially, 86% of patients reported excellent to good outcomes during follow-up, whereas 14% were dissatisfied. In the final year of the study, patient satisfaction increased to 94%, with only 6% remaining dissatisfied 30 days after the intervention [
86].
DISCUSSION
This paper evaluates the learning curve of minimally invasive lumbar surgeries using 3 primary criteria: surgery duration, conversions to open surgery, and complications. Typically, as surgeons gain experience, surgery duration decreases. Published evidence indicates that in minimally invasive lumbar discectomy, the reoperation rates for both the lELD and MED groups are not significantly different, whether evaluated within 2 years postsurgery or later [
87]. Studies on different lumbar fusion techniques for spinal stenosis suggest that MIS-TLIF is associated with a significantly higher incidence of reoperation compared to ELIF [
88]. This implies that once the learning curve for minimally invasive lumbar techniques is mastered, using reoperation rates to assess the effectiveness of various methods is meaningful. However, for beginners, unforeseen cases may require conversion to open surgery for better exposure and familiarity [
12]. This may explain why much of the literature on the learning curve often employs intraoperative conversion to open surgery rather than reoperation rates as a metric. Complications serve as a critical benchmark for proficiency, distinguishing minimally invasive from open surgeries. We examine the relationship between surgical time, complications, and the learning curve in the existing literature on minimally invasive lumbar surgery.
To understand the development and progression of new lumbar minimally invasive techniques, we conducted a bibliometric analysis using the Web of Science database. Our search with keywords “lumbar,” “minimally invasive,” “new,” and “technology” identified 634 papers from 1999 to 2024. The analysis revealed a general upward trend in research, particularly intensifying from 2014 onwards (
Fig. 4A). Keyword analysis showed a significant focus on fusion techniques (10%), with terms related to diskectomy and decompression also prominent. Complications accounted for 6% of the keywords, highlighting concerns about patient outcomes (
Fig. 4B and
C). Recent studies have increasingly focused on learning curves, reflecting a growing interest in optimizing training for these techniques (
Fig. 4D). The Mann-Kendall test indicated no significant difference in surgery time between early and late phases of these techniques, suggesting that newer minimally invasive approaches do not necessarily offer a time advantage.
1) Discectomy techniques
In discectomy, complications for beginners have decreased as techniques have advanced. However, dural tears remain common, particularly in microdiscectomy and MED techniques, where they account for 66.7% and 50% of complications, respectively. Beginners should focus on avoiding dural tears through thorough preparation and precise techniques. In full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy, the TELD and lELD techniques differ significantly. TELD often requires foraminotomy [
89], which can lead to higher rates of hypoesthesia [
90] and excessive facet resection [
91,
92]. In contrast, lELD, commonly used at L5–S1, avoids this, leading to different complication profiles. Beginners in TELD must be cautious of nerve root injuries [
93,
94], while those in lELD should be vigilant about avoiding dural tears [
93].
Interestingly, the learning curves for biportal endoscopy were similar to, if not greater than, those for uniportal endoscopy. This contradicts the current consensus that biportal endoscopy involves a more gradual learning curve. One possible explanation is that many studies included in our analysis were from China, where most spine surgeons are orthopedic surgeons without microscopic technique training, unlike neurosurgeons in other countries. Our results indicate that the initial placement of channels in biportal procedures is more challenging for some surgeons than in uniportal ones. This suggests that beginners in various countries or regions may benefit from personalized learning when learning new minimally invasive spinal techniques. Identifying techniques that suit their specific circumstances and local conditions, followed by in-depth study, may be a more effective approach.
2) Decompression techniques
For decompression techniques, beginners frequently encounter excessive facet resection and dural tears, primarily due to the unilateral approach for bilateral decompression [
95,
96]. This involves drilling for ipsilateral decompression and then contralateral decompression through a dorsal entry [
49]. Preoperative imaging is essential for understanding patient anatomy, and intraoperative fluoroscopic projections help optimize entry angles [
97]. Tool selection is also critical; manual tools like Kerrison rongeurs are recommended over electric tools to reduce complication rates [
98]. LE-ULBD has a surgical time notably shorter than UBE-ULBD, but longer than micro-ULBD. This suggests that LE-ULBD falls in the middle of the learning curve when compared to these techniques. Specifically, LE-ULBD’s endoscopic approach might offer a balance between the effectiveness afforded by the micro-ULBD, which has the shortest surgical times, and the visibility and precision of the UBE-ULBD, which appears to take the longest. This issue is often explained by the extent of trauma associated with decompression exposure. Micro-ULBD operates in a semi-open mode, resulting in greater trauma and a broader exposure range. This is beneficial for beginners, as it facilitates quicker identification of decompression targets and leads to shorter surgery durations. The primary distinction between LE-ULBD and UBE-ULBD is that LE employs a single-channel approach, whereas UBE uses a dual-channel approach. These methods may influence surgical duration for beginners, suggesting that those using the single-channel LE might adapt more readily and complete surgeries more quickly.
Each ULBD technique has unique complications, with decompression being more challenging for beginners than discectomy [
99-
101]. Endoscopic laminectomy for LSS requires dealing with adhesions and thinner dura mater, making it technically demanding. Surgeons should begin with endoscopic discectomy for herniated discs before progressing to LSS decompression. Statistical analysis confirms (
Fig. 5) that discectomy requires fewer cases to reach proficiency compared to ULBD, emphasizing the importance of starting with simpler procedures.
3) Foraminotomy technique
Although Lumbar foraminotomy presents a viable and effective alternative for managing foraminal stenosis, the procedure’s steep learning curve and the scarcity of comprehensive practical documentation can create challenges for beginners [
102]. Mastery of this technique requires a deep understanding of the anatomical course of the nerve root, which must be carefully targeted for decompression based on radiographic images. Further complicating the procedure is the fact that hypertrophy of the superior articular process and ligamentum flavum are often the primary causes of foraminal stenosis. These anatomical structures frequently undergo deformation and lack clear anatomical boundaries, making it exceedingly difficult to thoroughly remove the hypertrophied tissue. Beginners must be particularly mindful of these challenges, as incomplete resection can lead to persistent symptoms or recurrence. Moreover, achieving complete decompression of the nerve root, from the axillary region to the lateral exit zone, without causing excessive disturbance to the surrounding tissues is another critical hurdle. This step is crucial to avoid complications such as nerve injury or excessive bleeding, which can arise from improper handling or misalignment of surgical instruments [
103,
104]. To mitigate this risk, it is imperative that the positioning needle does not cross the posterior vertebral line during the initial setup [
105].
4) Fusion techniques
Complications in minimally invasive fusion techniques differ from those in decompression, with fusion facing unique hardware issues such as cage or pedicle screw misplacement. Each fusion technique presents distinct complications based on the surgical approach and hardware used [
106-
110]. LLIF’s lateral approach poses risks like vascular injury and lumbar plexus damage [
111-
116]. ALIF is associated with approach-related complications such as retrograde ejaculation and vascular injuries [
117-
119].
5) “New” minimally invasive spinal techniques
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the practicality of many new minimally invasive spinal technologies. These techniques, while promising smaller incisions and quicker recovery times, often present challenges such as limited fields of view, making the learning process more difficult. New methods are continually emerging, frequently without comprehensive evidence to support their effectiveness. For instance, Dai et al. [
120] developed the dual-door endoscopic channel method (UBED) using a Y-drain from soft plastic tubing for stability and space adjustment, but its effectiveness remains unclear. Similarly, Hamid Abbasi’s transfacet oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLLIF) adapts OLLIF to previously unreachable cases [
121], yet it primarily represents an enhancement of the existing OLLIF technique. Yuhang Ma’s mini-open TLIF combines percutaneous pedicle screws with a smaller incision and subperiosteal dissection [
122], differing only slightly from traditional TLIF. Despite these innovations, some experts warn that these less invasive methods can lead to increased complications and longer surgery times [
123].
The evolution of minimally invasive techniques is inevitable. Just as posterior lumbar interbody fusion was initially dismissed in 1944 [
124] (Henry Briggs and Paul Milligan, are often deemed to do the first posterior interbody fusions) but eventually became a staple in spinal surgery, new minimally invasive techniques might face initial skepticism before achieving widespread acceptance and revolutionary impact. The steep learning curve associated with these techniques necessitates strategies to flatten it, reduce complications, and provide novice surgeons with foresight.
New technologies not only drive surgical progress but also ease learning curves and reduce beginner-led complications [
125,
126]. Navigation systems, for example, can enhance accuracy and reduce radiation exposure in surgeries with limited visibility. Fan et al. [
127] found isocentric navigation useful for trajectory planning and puncture guidance, aiding surgical progress. Intraoperative navigation systems improve pedicle screw placement accuracy [
128,
129]. with Shin et al. [
130] finding computer-assisted navigation superior to traditional open techniques. Current systems, like the O-arm’s StealthStation, use reference markers for multi-dimensional imaging [
131], while new skin-feature tracking alternatives generate a virtual grid from multi-view image analysis to reduce intraoperative movements [
132]. Robotic-assisted techniques further enhance time, accuracy, and radiation exposure reduction [
133-
136]. Fan et al. [
127] describe the expansion of robotic spinal surgery into various endoscopic procedures, guiding discography in percutaneous cervical discectomy.
Apart from using assistive technology, beginners must adequately prepare themselves. This includes visualizing the entire anatomical structure to avoid violating anatomical directions, which requires substantial theoretical knowledge before undertaking procedures. Practice is crucial in developing the necessary mindset and skills for minimally invasive spinal surgery. Studies show that surgeons who practiced beforehand had lower complication rates and learned new techniques faster. Wiese et al. [
83] found that microdiscectomy requires a training course and extensive supervised surgery. Standardized steps can aid in identifying anatomical landmarks clearly. Ransom et al. [
44] noted that practice and mentorship help traditionally trained spine surgeons integrate endoscopy into their practice. They found that performing lumbar endoscopic decompression alongside senior surgeons, identifying endoscopic surgical anatomy through video, and simulating surgeries on cadavers were beneficial.
The development of VR and AR offers new avenues for immersive training [
137,
138]. VR allows for 3-dimensional visualization of anatomical structures, which can be manipulated and repositioned [
139,
140], while AR overlays computer-enhanced imaging onto real-world anatomical models [
141]. Both simulations enable beginners to practice specific skills in a controlled environment. Studies by Luciano et al. [
142] and Gasco et al. [
143] show that VR training significantly reduces errors and improves accuracy in procedures like pedicle screw placement.
Beginners need to anticipate and address complications associated with minimally invasive spinal surgery. Comprehensive theoretical knowledge and practical simulation training are essential. For example, CSF leaks are a major hurdle; immediate repair is crucial, yet challenging. Training models, like the perfusion-based simulation used by Buchanan et al. [
144], can significantly reduce the time needed for dura mater repair after CSF leaks.
In summary, we categorize the methods in easing the learning curve into 3 main areas: utilizing assistive technologies, beginners’ own efforts to smooth the learning curve, and gaining the ability to handle complications. In addition, access to professional training plays a significant role in easing the learning curve. This underscores the importance of developing professional training programs and training personnel.
4. Limitations
This paper has several limitations. Many studies did not disclose whether surgeons had in-depth training in specific techniques, making it unclear if the surgeons had consistent mindsets and abilities, which raises doubts about the results’ accuracy. This raises questions about whether the effects observed by beginners in the included literature are due to the inherent trends of the learning curve itself, which casts doubt on the accuracy of the results. Additionally, the included studies on conversions to open surgery were primarily focused on minimally invasive decompression, with insufficient quantity and quality for comprehensive analysis. As a critical component of the learning curve in minimally invasive surgery, future research should conduct in-depth studies on the indicator of the conversions to open surgery in spinal minimally invasive procedures. In fusion studies, many did not specify the number of segments, making comparisons of surgery times across different segment numbers less accurate. Our use of the Mann-Kendall test for sensitivity analysis showed that surgery time did not vary significantly with the year for the same technique. Due to limited literature on learning curves in minimally invasive spine techniques, we only explored trends in MIS-TLIF, MED, TELD, and lELD. The regression analysis suggests that only TELD shows a correlation between procedure frequency and the rate of reaching proficiency asymptotes. The extensive time span of novice surgical patient operation dates dilutes the concept of frequency, compromising statistical rigor. Furthermore, the lack of patient information prevents defining individual surgery difficulty. Beginners usually face easier surgeries initially, reducing early complications, but as they progress to more complex cases, complication rates may increase [
145]. Some studies showed higher complication rates in the later stages of training. This underscores the need for RCTs to ensure scientific rigor and prevent varying difficulty levels from affecting learning curves [
123]. Despite the challenges, future research must prioritize high-quality RCTs for meaningful results.
CONCLUSION
Our research explored the learning curve of minimally invasive lumbar surgery by analyzing surgical duration, conversion rates to open surgery, and complications. The findings indicate that while minimally invasive surgery offers significant benefits, it also presents a steep learning curve with unique challenges. Complication rates vary across different techniques: discectomy, decompression, and fusion each have distinct risks. Fusion techniques often face hardware-related complications, whereas discectomy and decompression pose challenges due to their differing surgical approaches. The evolution of minimally invasive lumbar surgery introduces both opportunities and challenges, necessitating a balance between technological advancements and comprehensive training. Tailored strategies and further research are essential to optimize outcomes and ensure surgeon proficiency. It is noteworthy that exploring higher-quality RCTs and standardized training programs related to the learning curve of minimally invasive spinal surgery are key to shortening the learning curve for beginners.
Supplementary Material
NOTES
-
Conflict of Interest
Jin-Sung Kim is a consultant for RIWOSpine, GmbH, Germany, Stöckli Medical AG, Switzerland and Elliquence, LLC, USA. The other authors have nothing to disclose.
-
Funding/Support
This research is supported by a grant from Korea’s Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (Grant Number: HC20 C0163). The funder had no role in the design of the study or collection, analysis, or interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript.
-
Author Contribution
Conceptualization: QL, JSK; Data curation: ZY, SS, YL, DRS, VK, KJ, EG; Funding acquisition: JSK; Methodology: QL; Project administration: KW, ZY, SS, YL, KJ, EG, JSK; Visualization: KW, ZY, DRS, VK; Writing – original draft: KW; Writing – review & editing: KW, QL, JSK.
Fig. 1.The learning curve and gartner hype cycle curve (created with BioRender.com). The learning curve and the Gartner hype cycle curve exhibit entirely different development patterns.
Fig. 2.Flow chart of the selection process for relative studies.
Fig. 3.The surgical time varies with increasing case numbers across different surgical techniques. The fusion techniques surgical time is longer than that for decompression techniques and discectomy techniques. MED, microendoscopic discectomy; UBE-LD, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar discectomy; TELD, transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy; lELD, interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy; ULBD, unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression; LE-ULBD, lumbar endoscopic ULBD; MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; LLIF, lateral lumbar interbody fusion; ALIF, nterior lumbar interbody fusion; ELIF, endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion.
Fig. 4.The figure in trends and keyword analysis in new minimally invasive lumbar techniques (A: the annual trends of publications, B: cluster analysis of hot word frequency, C: WordCloud-Keyword emergence analysis, D: top 21 keywords with the strongest citation bursts). A consistent upward trend in related new minimally invasive lumbar techniques researches.
Fig. 5.Comparative analysis of decompression and discectomy- decompression techniques are more challenging for beginners compared to discectomy techniques. MED, microendoscopic discectomy; ESS, endoscopic spine surgery; UBE, unilateral biportal endoscopic.
Table 1.The main features of the articles included on discectomy techniques
Table 1.
|
Study |
Study design |
Surgical technique |
Disease |
Region |
Hospital |
Training background |
Sample size |
Time span |
Asymptote: number/time |
Complications |
Conversion to open |
|
Nowitzke [82] 2005 |
Prospective |
MED |
LDH |
Brisbane, Australia |
The Princess Alexandra Hospital |
An individual surgeon not previously exposed to this procedure |
35 |
July 2001-December 2003 |
Case 30 |
None |
None |
|
Jhala [75] 2010 |
Retrospective |
MED |
LDH |
Ahmedabad, India |
Chirayu Hospital |
A single surgeon |
100 |
August 2002-December 2005 |
None |
In initial 25 cases: 5 |
1 Case nerve root injury |
|
Postoperative discitis: 4 |
|
In all 100 cases: 12 |
|
Inadvertent removal of the facet joint: 5 |
|
Minor dural punctures: 7 |
|
Rong [77] 2008 |
Prospective |
MED |
LDH |
China |
None |
Nine-year experience as an orthopedic clinician |
50 |
June 2002-February 2003 |
Case 20 |
All occurred in the initial |
None |
|
20 procedures: 5 |
|
CSF leakage: 1 |
|
Readjusted due to inaccuracy in vertebral Localization: 1 |
|
Delayed wound healing: 1 |
|
Dural tear: 2 |
|
Marappan [51] 2018 |
Prospective |
MED |
LDH |
India |
Stanley Medical College |
None |
40 |
2003-2007 |
Case 20 |
None |
None |
|
Jain [46] 2020 |
Retrospective |
MED |
LDH |
Mumbai, India |
Bombay Hospital and Research Centre |
A 2-year fellowship-trained surgeon |
120 |
2008-2016 |
Case 25-30 |
All 120 cases: 4 |
None |
|
Dural tear: 4 |
|
McLoughlin [79] 2008 |
Prospective |
Microdiscectomy |
LDH |
Saskatchewan, Canada |
University of Saskatchewan |
A single surgeon |
52 |
None |
Case 15 |
All occurred first 30 cases: 3 |
1 Case dural tear |
|
Dural tear to CSF: 2 |
|
A root sleeve tear: 1 |
|
Wiese [83] 2004 |
Prospective |
Microdiscectomy |
LDH |
Bochum, Germany |
Josef Hospital |
One experienced surgeon, 7 less experienced surgeons |
None |
January 1981-June 2000 |
None |
None |
None |
|
Chen [37] 2022 |
Retrospective |
UBE-LD |
LDH |
Hefei, China |
The Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University |
A senior orthopedic doctor |
97 |
November 2018-May 2020 |
Case 24 |
In all 97 cases: 4 |
None |
|
Dural injury: 2 |
|
Lee [80] 2008 |
Prospective |
TELD |
LDH |
Korea |
Wooridul Spine Hospital |
Surgeon had performed about 200 cases of open microdiscectomy |
51 |
November 2004-October 2005 |
Case 35 |
All occurred in the initial 34 procedures: 2 |
4 |
|
Morgenstern [81] 2007 |
Prospective |
TELD |
LDH |
Barcelona, Spain |
Centro Médico Teknon |
One orthopedic surgeon who had experience performing open spine surgery and knee and shoulder arthroscopic surgery |
144 |
January 2001-June 2005 |
Case 35 |
None |
None |
|
Son [39] 2021 |
Retrospective |
TELD |
LDH |
Seoul, South Korea |
Gachon University College of Medicine |
One surgeon at a single institute started to perform PETLD from September 2014 |
48 |
September 2014-August 2017 |
Case 26 |
All occurred in the initial 25 procedures: 4 |
1 Case |
|
Exciting nerve root: 4 |
|
Yang [41] 2020 |
Retrospective |
TELD |
LDH |
Sichuan, China |
West China Hospital |
Before using PETD for LSS, the author observed 10 cases treated with this surgery at a spinal endoscopy center and practiced on cadavers 5 times. |
75 |
July 2015-September 2016 |
Case 35 |
All 75 cases: 4 |
1 Case |
|
Dural tear and insufficient enlargement of bony lateral recess: 1 |
|
Nerve root injury, residual osteophyte, and neck pain: 1 |
|
Dural tear, residual osteophyte, neck pain: 1 |
|
Nerve root injury: 1 |
|
Fleiderman [29] 2023 |
Retrospective |
TELD |
LDH |
Santiago, Chile |
Hospital del Trabajador |
A single surgeon |
41 |
June 2013-2020 |
Case 20 |
None |
None |
|
Ransom [44] 2020 |
Retrospective |
TELD |
LDH |
California, USA |
Monterey Spine and Joint Center |
Two traditionally trained "apprentice" surgeons |
20 |
None |
Case 15 |
None |
None |
|
Gadjradj [36] 2022 |
RCT |
TELD |
LDH |
Netherlands |
4 General hospitals |
Three surgeons were trained in the PTED-procedure by a senior surgeon. |
304 |
None |
None |
Repeated surgery within 1 year: 24 |
7 |
|
Chaichankul [70] 2012 |
Prospective |
TELD |
LDH |
Bangkok, Thailand |
Phramongkutklao Hospital and College of Medicine |
None |
50 |
None |
None |
None |
None |
|
Wu [55] 2016 |
Retrospective |
TELD |
LDH |
Shanghai, China |
An affiliated Tenth People's Hospital of Tongji University |
Ten-year experience of open spine surgery |
120 |
June 2011-August 2013 |
None |
None |
2 |
|
Tenenbaum [72] 2011 |
Retrospective |
TELD |
LDH |
Israel |
Department of Orthopedic Surgery Sheba Medical Center |
None |
150 |
None |
None |
In all 150 cases: 2 |
None |
|
Postsurgery hypoesthesia: 1 |
|
One deep wound infection: 1 |
|
Maayanan [28] 2023 |
Retrospective |
TELD |
LDH |
New York, USA |
Hospital for Special Surgery |
A single surgeon |
55 |
December 2020-2022 |
Case 31 |
None |
None |
|
Wang [65] 2013 |
Retrospective |
TELD |
LDH |
Chongqing, China |
Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University |
More than 10 years of experience of open spine surgery and with little professional training of PELD. |
120 |
September 2005-May 2011 |
None |
None |
None |
|
Ahn [61] 2015 |
Retrospective |
IELD |
LDH |
Seoul, Korea |
Gangnam Severance Spine Hospital |
None |
215 |
August 2012-January 2014 |
Case 35 |
None |
None |
|
Xu [62] 2014 |
Prospective |
IELD |
LDH |
Jiangsu, China |
Department of Orthopedics of Jinling Hospital |
The same team of surgeons |
36 |
March 2011-March 2012 |
Case 20 |
0 |
2 Cases narrow interlaminar space |
|
Son [43] 2020 |
Prospective |
IELD |
LDH |
Incheon, South Korea |
Gachon University College of Medicine |
A single surgeon |
27 |
September 2014-August 2016 |
Case 18 |
In all 27 cases: 2 |
0 |
|
Incidental intraoperative tiny durotomy: 2 |
|
Joswig [56] 2016 |
Prospective |
IELD |
LDH |
Gallen, Switzerland |
Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen |
Two spinal surgeons |
76 |
None |
Case 40 |
In all 76 cases: 4 |
0 |
|
Wang [71] 2011 |
Prospective |
IELD |
LDH |
Changsha, China |
Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University |
Two fellowship-trained spine surgeons |
30 |
None |
Initial 8: 107.9 min |
All occurred in the initial 20 procedures: 2 |
2 |
|
After 10 cases: 68.5 min |
Dural tears: 2 |
|
After 20 cases: 43.2 min |
|
|
Hsu [67] 2013 |
Retrospective |
TELD |
LDH |
Taipei, Taiwan |
Buddhist Tzu Chi Hospital |
The senior author observed 3 cases of transforaminal approach and 3 cases of interlaminar approach |
34 |
July 2006-July 2009 |
Case 10 |
In all 56 cases: 8 |
2 None |
|
IELD |
22 |
Case 33 |
Transient nerve injuries: 2 |
|
|
|
Disc reherniation: 2 |
|
|
|
Reoperation: 4 |
|
Olinger [27] 2023 |
Prospective |
TELD |
LDH |
IA, USA |
University of Iowa |
Single surgeon |
44 |
September 2017–February 2019 |
Median operative time: 52 min |
None |
None |
|
IELD |
46 |
Median operative time: 73 min |
|
Zelenkov [40] 2020 |
Prospective |
TELD |
LDH |
Moscow, Russia |
Burdenko National Medical Research Center for Neurosurgery |
Single surgeon |
16 |
February 2013–March 2015 |
Case 7 |
In all 16 cases: 0 |
0 |
|
IELD |
41 |
Case 17 |
In all 41 cases: 4 |
0 |
|
|
|
Dural ruptures: 4 |
|
Table 2.The main features of the articles included on decompression techniques
Table 2.
|
Study |
Study design |
Surgical technique |
Disease |
Region |
Hospital |
Training background |
Sample size |
Time span |
Asymptote: number/time |
Complications |
Conversion to open |
|
Mannion [68] 2012 |
Retrospective |
Micro-ULBD |
LSS |
Queensland, Australia |
Princess Alexandra Hospital |
Senior spine surgeon |
50 |
None |
None |
In all 50 cases: 12 |
1 |
|
Dura tear: 9 |
|
Severe back pain: 1 |
|
Inadequate decompression: 1 |
|
Fixation: 1 |
|
Ahn [58] 2016 |
Retrospective |
Micro-ULBD |
LDH/LSS |
Chicago, USA |
Rush University Medical Center |
A single surgeon |
100 |
2009-2014 |
None |
In all 100 cases: 12 |
1 Nerve root injury |
|
Inadvertent removal of the facet joint: 5 |
|
Minor dural punctures: 7 |
|
Park [32] 2022 |
Retrospective |
Micro-ULBD |
LSS |
Korea |
Korea University Ansan Hospital |
The operator had 1 year's fellowship training |
194 |
April 2017-June 2020 |
Case 29 |
In all 194 cases: 27 |
None |
|
Dural tear: 23 |
|
Hematoma: 2 |
|
Incomplete decompression: 1 |
|
Wrong level surgery: 1 |
|
Parikh [78] 2008 |
Prospective |
Micro-ULBD |
LSS |
New York, USA |
New York Presbyterian Hospital |
Two surgeons |
230 |
2004-2007 |
55% decrease in procedure time from initial case to case 230 |
In all 230 cases: 20 |
None |
|
Intraoperative dural tears: 19 |
|
A superficial wound infection: 1 |
|
Nomura [54] 2015 |
Retrospective |
MED-ULBD |
LSS |
Wakayama, Japan |
Sumiya Orthopaedic Hospital |
The first author of this report had 10 years of experience as an orthopedic clinician |
480 |
November 2006-January 2015 |
Case 30 |
In all 480 cases: 10 |
None |
|
Dural tears: 9 |
|
Epidural hematoma: 1 |
|
Lee [53] 2018 |
Retrospective |
LE-ULBD |
LSS |
Seoul, Korea |
Peter's Hospital |
A single surgeon with experience performing traditional spinal surgery cases (>3,000 cases) |
132 |
August 2012-August 2017 |
In the late period of the learning curve, mean operative time was shortened by two-thirds |
None |
None |
|
Lee [49] 2019 |
Retrospective |
LE-ULBD |
LDH/LSS |
Seoul, Korea |
The Leon Wiltse Memorial Hospital |
A single surgeon |
223 |
November 2013-February 2018 |
Case 100 |
In all 223 cases: 24 |
None |
|
Dura tear: 5 |
|
Motor weakness: 4 |
|
Dysthesia: 5 |
|
Postoperative hematoma: 3 |
|
Excessive facet resection: 7 |
|
Park [48] 2019 |
Retrospective |
UBE-ULBD |
LSS |
Seongnam, Korea |
Seoul National University College of Medicine |
The surgeon was proficient in open and microscopic ULBD for LSS |
60 |
June 2017-January 2018 |
Case 58 |
In all 60 cases: 6 |
None |
|
Dura tear: 3 |
|
Hematoma: 1 |
|
Incomplete decompression: 2 |
|
Choi [57] 2016 |
Retrospective |
UBE-ULBD/UBE-D |
LDH/LSS |
Jinju, Korea |
Barun Hospital |
The surgeon had 8 years of experience in spine surgery |
23 |
January-May of 2015 |
None |
None |
None |
|
Xu [30] 2022 |
Retrospective |
UBE-LD |
LDH/LSS |
China |
Hangzhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine |
The same surgeon who had extensive experience in percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) |
90 |
December 2019-December 2020 |
Case 32 |
In all 90 cases: 5 |
None |
|
Dura tear: 1 |
|
Epidural hematoma: 1 |
|
Residue: 3 |
|
UBE-ULBD |
107 |
Case 67 |
In all 107 cases: 7 |
None |
|
Dura tear: 3 |
|
Epidural hematoma: 1 |
|
Nerve root injury: 3 |
|
Wu [26] 2023 |
Prospective |
LE-ULBD |
LSS |
Singapore, Singapore |
National University of Singapore |
A single fellowship-trained spine surgeon |
29 |
April 2020-April 2021 |
None |
Three suffered incidental durotomies |
2 |
|
UBE-ULBD |
32 |
No one |
0 |
|
Sairy [74] (2010) |
Retrospective |
MED-ULBD |
LSS |
Kawasaki, Japan |
Teikyo University Mizonokuchi Hospital |
A single surgeon |
57 |
None |
None |
In all 57 cases: 6 |
None |
|
MED |
74 |
In all 74 cases: 5 |
None |
Table 3.The main features of the articles included on fusion techniques
Table 3.
|
Study |
Study design |
Surgical technique |
Disease |
Region |
Hospital |
Training background |
Sample size |
Time span |
Asymptote: number/time |
Complications |
|
Lau [73] 2011 |
Prospective |
MIS-TLIF |
Spondylolisthesis |
San Francisco, USA |
University of California San Francisco |
Senior spine surgeon |
10 |
Between 2005-2008 |
None |
In all 10 cases: 4 |
|
Cardiopulmonary event and deep wound infection: 1 |
|
Superficial wound infection: 1 |
|
Pseudarthrosis: 1 |
|
Instrumentation malposition requiringreoperation: 1 |
|
Kumar [50] 2019 |
Prospective |
MIS-TLIF |
Degenerative spondylosis and spondylolisthesis |
New York, USA |
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai |
The surgeon completed a residency in Orthopedic Surgery followed by a fellowship in Spine surgery |
109 |
between 2011-2015 |
Case 38 |
In all 109 cases: 11 |
|
Epidural hematomas requiring operative evacuation: 2 |
|
Failed hardware requiring revision: 2 |
|
Pseudarthrosis requiring revision: 2 |
|
Recurrent stenosis requiring revision: 2 |
|
Adjacent segment pathology requiring revision surgery: 3 |
|
Silva [66] 2013 |
Prospective |
MIS-TLIF |
Degenerative spondylolisthesis and recurrent lumbar disc herniation, etc. |
Porto, Portugal |
Hospital São João |
Senior spine surgeon |
150 |
None |
Case 40 |
In all 150 cases: 19 |
|
Dural tears: 8 |
|
Persistent neurogenic bladder, perineal hypesthesia: 1 |
|
Severe postop sciatica (transient): 3 |
|
Superficial wound infection: 2 |
|
Deep wound infection & meningitis: 1 |
|
Persistent motor radiculopathy: 1 |
|
Screw malposition requiring revision: 1 |
|
Extradural hematoma (reintervention): 1 |
|
Myocardial infarction: 1 |
|
Park [59] 2015 |
Prospective |
MIS-TLIF |
Spondylolisthesis, foraminal stenosis and foraminal disc herniation, etc. |
Goyang, Korea |
National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital |
None |
124 |
October 2003-May 2007 |
None |
In all 124 cases: 11 |
|
Temporary postoperative neuralgia: 3 |
|
Deep wound infections: 2 |
|
Pedicle screw misplacements: 2 |
|
Cage migrations: 2 |
|
Dural tear: 1 |
|
Grafted bone extrusion: 1 |
|
Lee [64] 2014 |
Prospective |
MIS-TLIF |
Spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis |
Singapore |
Singapore General Hospital |
A single surgeon |
90 |
2005-200 |
Case 44 |
All occurred in the initial 44 procedures: 3 |
|
Schizas [76] 2009 |
Prospective |
MIS-TLIF |
Isthmic spondylolisthesis, asymmetrical disc disease with foraminal stenosis, etc. |
Lausanne, Switzerland |
Hôpital Orthopédique de la Suisse Romande |
A single surgeon |
18 |
None |
30% decrease in procedure time from initial case to case 12 |
In all 18 cases: 3 |
|
Dural tear: 1 |
|
Brachial plexus palsy: 1 |
|
Root paresis: 1 |
|
Garcia [35] 2022 |
Retrospective |
MIS-TLIF |
Lumbar spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease |
Florida, |
Mayo Clinic |
A single spinal surgeon with experience in open TLIF and no previous experience in MIS-TLIF |
100 |
None |
Case 58 |
In all 58 cases: 6 |
|
Malpositioned right L5 screw: 1 |
|
Incidental durotomy: 1 |
|
Bone graft extrusion into left L5 foramen: 1 |
|
Bilateral foot drop: 1 |
|
Retroperitoneal hematoma: 1 |
|
Readmission for pain control: 1 |
|
Nandyala [63] 2014 |
Prospective |
MIS-TLIF |
Degenerative disk disease or spondylolisthesis with stenosis |
Chicago, USA |
Rush University Medical Center |
Senior spine surgeon |
65 |
July 2008-April 2011 |
Case 33 |
In all 65 cases: 12 |
|
Implant screw displacements: 6 |
|
Pseudarthrosis: 2 |
|
Graft migration: 3 |
|
Surgical site infection: 1 |
|
Lee [69] 2012 |
Prospective |
MIS-TLIF |
LDH/LSS/ spondylolisthesis |
Seoul, Korea |
Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital |
A single surgeon |
86 |
None |
Case 30 |
In all 86 cases: 9 |
|
Screw malposition: 2 |
|
Deep wound infection: 2 |
|
Pseudarthrosis: 4 |
|
Re-exploration for removing bone graft fragments extruding from the cage that were irritating the nerve root: 1 |
|
Wang [42] 2020 |
Retrospective |
MIS-TLIF |
LDH/LSS/ spondylolisthesis |
Chongqing, China |
Third Military Medical University |
A single surgeon |
122 |
March 2016 August 2017 |
Case 25 |
Cerebrospinal fluid leakage: 2 |
|
Warren [38] 2021 |
Retrospective |
Lulf |
Spondylolisthesis |
California, USA |
Stanford University |
A single surgeon |
None |
January 2013-October 2019 |
None |
None |
|
Ng [60] 2015 |
Prospective |
Luf |
Lu |
Singapore |
Tan Tock Seng Hospital |
Two senior spine surgeon |
one |
April 2012-August 2014 |
None |
None |
|
Jacob [34] 2022 |
Retrospective |
Luif |
Degenerative spond Degenerative scoliosis, etc. |
Chicago, Illinois, USA |
Rush University Medical Center |
A single surgeon |
179 |
July 2006-March 2021 |
Linear model predicted at case 34 |
In all 179 cases: 28 |
|
Urinary retention: 9 |
|
Urinary tract infection: 1 |
|
Altered mental status: 2 |
|
Arrhythmia: 2 |
|
Dysphagia: 3 |
|
Ileus: 2 |
|
Nausea/vomiting: 9 |
|
Silva [47] 2019 |
Retrospective |
LIIF |
Spondylolisthesis and disc disease, etc. |
Porto, Portugal |
Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto |
A single surgeon |
None |
February 2015-March 2018 March 2018 |
None |
None |
|
Liu [52] 2018 |
Prospective |
LIIF |
Spondylolisthesis |
Chongqing, China |
Affiliated Xinqiao Hospital, The Third Military Medical University |
Senior spine surgeon |
49 |
None |
Case |
In all 49 cases: 29 |
|
Donor site pain: 15 |
|
Thigh numbness and pain: 8 |
|
Psoas and quadriceps weakness: 3 |
|
Sympathetic nerve injury: 2 |
|
Paralytic ileus: 1 |
|
Mirza [33] 2022 |
Retrospective |
mini-ALIF |
Degenerative spondylolisthesis and degenerative disk disease, etc. |
Wisconsin, USA |
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health |
All patients underwent the anterior approach by the same surgeon |
127 |
January 01, 2010-December 31, 2018 |
Case 25 |
In all 127 cases: 32 |
|
DVT (deep vein thrombosis): 3 |
|
Delayed return of bowel function: 3 |
|
Lower extremity swelling, pain, and cramps: 6 |
|
Superficial wound complication (infection or hematoma): 7 |
|
UTI (urinary tract infection): 1 |
|
30-day readmission/ED visits: 14 |
|
Kim [45] 2020 |
Retrospective |
UBE-TLIF |
Degenerative spondylolisthesis and isthmic spondylolisthesis |
Busan, Korea |
Himnaera Hospital |
A single surgeon |
57 |
January 2017-December 2018 |
Case 34 |
In all 57 cases: 3 |
|
Postoperative spinal epidural hematoma: 1 |
|
Cage subsidence: 1 |
|
Transient paralysis: 1 |
|
Zhao [25] 2023 |
Retrospective |
LIF |
Moderate to severe stenosis and spondylolisthesis, etc. |
Zhejiang, China |
Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College |
This surgeon has 15 years of attending spine surgeon experience |
93 |
October 2017-April 2020 |
Case 25 |
In all 93 cases: 4 |
|
Contralateral nerve root compression: 2 |
|
Infection: 1 |
|
Severe radiculopathy: 1 |
|
Tan [31] 2022 |
Retrospective |
If |
LDH/LSS spondylolisthesis |
Hunan, China |
The Second Xiangya Hospital |
Two fellowshiptrained spine surgeons |
36 |
None |
Case 10 |
All occurred in the initial 24 procedures: 3 |
|
Dural tear: 1 |
|
Incomplete reduction requiring open-access revision: 1 |
|
Postoperative nerve root sympton: 1 |
REFERENCES
- 1. Momin AA, Steinmetz MP. Evolution of minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. World Neurosurg 2020;140:622-6.
- 2. Yaşargil MG, Krayenbühl H. The use of the binocular microscope in neurosurgery. Bibl Ophthal 1970;81:62-5.
- 3. Snyder LA, O’Toole J, Eichholz KM, et al. The technological development of minimally invasive spine surgery. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:293582.
- 4. Keller T, Holland MC. Some notable American spine surgeons of the 19th century. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22:1413-7.
- 5. Khandge AV, Sharma SB, Kim JS. The evolution of transforaminal endoscopic spine surgery. World Neurosurg 2021;145:643-56.
- 6. Berlemann U, Heini P, Müller U, et al. Reliability of pedicle screw assessment utilizing plain radiographs versus CT reconstruction. Eur Spine J 1997;6:406-10.
- 7. Härtl R, Lam KS, Wang J, et al. Worldwide survey on the use of navigation in spine surgery. World Neurosurg 2013;79:162-72.
- 8. Mason A, Paulsen R, Babuska JM, et al. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems. J Neurosurg Spine 2014;20:196-203.
- 9. Perez-Cruet MJ, Foley KT, Isaacs RE, et al. Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy: technical note. Neurosurgery 2002;51(5 Suppl):S129-36.
- 10. Kambin P, O’Brien E, Zhou L, et al. Arthroscopic microdiscectomy and selective fragmentectomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;(347):150-67.
- 11. Mathews HH, Evans MT, Molligan HJ, et al. Laparoscopic discectomy with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. A preliminary review. Spine 1995;20:1797-802.
- 12. Sharif S, Afsar A. Learning curve and minimally invasive spine surgery. World Neurosurg 2018;119:472-8.
- 13. Valsamis EM, Chouari T, O’Dowd-Booth C, et al. Learning curves in surgery: variables, analysis and applications. Postgrad Med J 2018;94:525-30.
- 14. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, et al. Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies. Health Technol Assess 2001;5:1-79.
- 15. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, et al. Assessment of the learning curve in health technologies. A systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:1095-108.
- 16. Le Huec JC, Seresti S, Bourret S, et al. Revision after spinal stenosis surgery. Eur Spine J 2020;29:22-38.
- 17. Goldberg JL, Härtl R, Elowitz E. Minimally invasive spine surgery: an overview. World Neurosurg 2022;163:214-27.
- 18. Schmidt FA, Wong T, Kirnaz S, et al. Development of a curriculum for minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS). Global Spine J 2020;10(2 Suppl):122S-125S.
- 19. Sarkar M, Maalouly J, Ruparel S, et al. Sacroiliac joint fusion: fusion rates and clinical improvement using minimally invasive approach and intraoperative navigation and robotic guidance. Asian Spine J 2022;16:882-9.
- 20. Ariffin MHM, Ibrahim K, Baharudin A, et al. Early experience, setup, learning curve, benefits, and complications associated with exoscope and three-dimensional 4K hybrid digital visualizations in minimally invasive spine surgery. Asian Spine J 2020;14:59-65.
- 21. Hofstetter CP, Ahn Y, Choi G, et al. AOSpine consensus paper on nomenclature for working-channel endoscopic spinal procedures. Global Spine J 2020;10(2 Suppl):111S-121S.
- 22. Shriver MF, Xie JJ, Tye EY, et al. Lumbar microdiscectomy complication rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus 2015;39:E6.
- 23. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;10:ED000142.
- 24. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25:603-5.
- 25. Zhao T, Dai Z, Zhang J, et al. Determining the learning curve for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases. J Orthop Surg Res 2023;18:193.
- 26. Wu PH, Chin BZJ, Lee P, et al. Ambulatory uniportal versus biportal endoscopic unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis-cohort study using a prospective registry. Eur Spine J 2023;32:2726-35.
- 27. Olinger C, Coffman A, Campion C, et al. Initial learning curve after switching to uniportal endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniations. Eur Spine J 2023;32:2694-9.
- 28. Maayan O, Pajak A, Shahi P, et al. Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy learning curve: a CuSum analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2023;48:1508-16.
- 29. Fleiderman VJ, Lecaros BJ, Cirillo TJI, et al. Transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy: learning curve of a single surgeon. J Spine Surg 2023;9:159-65.
- 30. Xu J, Wang D, Liu J, et al. Learning curve and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopy: cumulative sum and riskadjusted cumulative sum analysis. Neurospine 2022;19:792-804.
- 31. Tan R, Lv X, Wu P, et al. Learning curve and initial outcomes of full-endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Front Surg 2022;9:890689.
- 32. Park J, Park HJ, Park SM, et al. Learning curve for microscopic unilateral laminectomy for bilateral decompression surgery using the cumulative summation test for learning curve. Medicine (Baltimore) 2022;101:e31069.
- 33. Mirza MZ, Olson SL, Panthofer AM, et al. Surgeon learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior percutaneous instrumentation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Res Rev 2022;6:e22.00207.
- 34. Jacob KC, Patel MR, Prabhu MC, et al. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion: single surgeon learning curve. World Neurosurg 2022;164:e411-9.
- 35. Garcia D, Sousa-Pinto B, De Biase G, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: cost of a surgeon’s learning curve. World Neurosurg 2022;162:e1-7.
- 36. Gadjradj PS, Vreeling A, Depauw PR, et al. Surgeons learning curve of transforaminal endoscopic discectomy for sciatica. Neurospine 2022;19:594-602.
- 37. Chen L, Zhu B, Zhong HZ, et al. The learning curve of unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spinal surgery by CUSUM analysis. Front Surg 2022;9:873691.
- 38. Warren SI, Wadhwa H, Koltsov JCB, et al. One surgeon’s learning curve with single position lateral lumbar interbody fusion: perioperative outcomes and complications. J Spine Surg 2021;7:162-9.
- 39. Son S, Ahn Y, Lee SG, et al. Learning curve of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar discectomy by a single surgeon. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021;100:e24346.
- 40. Zelenkov P, Nazarov VV, Kisaryev S, et al. Learning curve and early results of interlaminar and transforaminal fullendoscopic resection of lumbar disc herniations. Cureus 2020;12:e7157.
- 41. Yang J, Guo C, Kong Q, et al. Learning curve and clinical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Int Orthop 2020;44:309-17.
- 42. Wang Y, Zhang Y, Chong F, et al. Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion via a novel tubular retractor. J Int Med Res 2020;48:300060520920090.
- 43. Son S, Ahn Y, Lee SG, et al. Learning curve of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy versus open lumbar microdiscectomy at the L5-S1 level. PLoS One 2020;15:e0236296.
- 44. Ransom NA, Gollogly S, Lewandrowski KU, et al. Navigating the learning curve of spinal endoscopy as an established traditionally trained spine surgeon. J Spine Surg 2020;6(Suppl 1):S197-207.
- 45. Kim JE, Yoo HS, Choi DJ, et al. Learning curve and clinical outcome of biportal endoscopic-assisted lumbar interbody fusion. Biomed Res Int 2020;2020:8815432.
- 46. Jain S, Merchant Z, Kire N, et al. Learning curve of microendoscopic discectomy in single-level prolapsed intervertebral disc in 120 patients. Global Spine J 2020;10:571-7.
- 47. Silva F, Silva PS, Vaz R, et al. Midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) with cortical screws: initial experience and learning curve. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2019;161:2415-20.
- 48. Park SM, Kim HJ, Kim GU, et al. Learning curve for lumbar decompressive laminectomy in biportal endoscopic spinal surgery using the cumulative summation test for learning curve. World Neurosurg 2019;122:e1007-13.
- 49. Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Kim SW. Percutaneous endoscopic decompression in lumbar canal and lateral recess stenosis - the surgical learning curve. Neurospine 2019;16:63-71.
- 50. Kumar A, Merrill RK, Overley SC, et al. Radiation exposure in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of the learning curve. Int J Spine Surg 2019;13:39-45.
- 51. Marappan K, Jothi R, Paul Raj S. Microendoscopic discectomy (MED) for lumbar disc herniation: comparison of learning curve of the surgery and outcome with other established case studies. J Spine Surg 2018;4:630-7.
- 52. Liu C, Wang J. Learning curve of minimally invasive surgery oblique lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases. World Neurosurg 2018;120:e88-93.
- 53. Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Jun JH. Percutaneous endoscopic laminotomy with flavectomy by uniportal, unilateral approach for the lumbar canal or lateral recess stenosis. World Neurosurg 2018;113:e129-37.
- 54. Nomura K, Yoshida M. Assessment of the learning curve for microendoscopic decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis through an analysis of 480 cases involving a single surgeon. Global Spine J 2017;7:54-8.
- 55. Wu XB, Fan GX, Gu X, et al. Learning curves of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in transforaminal approach at the L4/5 and L5/S1 levels: a comparative study. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2016;17:553-60.
- 56. Joswig H, Richter H, Haile SR, et al. Introducing interlaminar full-endoscopic lumbar diskectomy: a critical analysis of complications, recurrence rates, and outcome in view of two spinal surgeons’ learning curves. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2016;77:406-15.
- 57. Choi DJ, Choi CM, Jung JT, et al. Learning curve associated with complications in biportal endoscopic spinal surgery: challenges and strategies. Asian Spine J 2016;10:624-9.
- 58. Ahn J, Iqbal A, Manning BT, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression-the surgical learning curve. Spine J 2016;16:909-16.
- 59. Park Y, Lee SB, Seok SO, et al. Perioperative surgical complications and learning curve associated with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a singleinstitute experience. Clin Orthop Surg 2015;7:91-6.
- 60. Ng CL, Pang BC, Medina PJ, et al. The learning curve of lateral access lumbar interbody fusion in an Asian population: a prospective study. Eur Spine J 2015;24 Suppl 3:361-8.
- 61. Ahn SS, Kim SH, Kim DW. Learning curve of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy based on the period (early vs. late) and technique (in-and-out vs. in-and-outand-in): a retrospective comparative study. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2015;58:539-46.
- 62. Xu H, Liu X, Liu G, et al. Learning curve of full-endoscopic technique through interlaminar approach for L5/S1 disk herniations. Cell Biochem Biophys 2014;70:1069-74.
- 63. Nandyala SV, Fineberg SJ, Pelton M, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: one surgeon’s learning curve. Spine J 2014;14:1460-5.
- 64. Lee KH, Yeo W, Soeharno H, et al. Learning curve of a complex surgical technique: minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). J Spinal Disord Tech 2014;27:E234-40.
- 65. Wang H, Huang B, Li C, et al. Learning curve for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy depending on the surgeon’s training level of minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2013;115:1987-91.
- 66. Silva PS, Pereira P, Monteiro P, et al. Learning curve and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 2013;35:E7.
- 67. Hsu HT, Chang SJ, Yang SS, et al. Learning curve of fullendoscopic lumbar discectomy. Eur Spine J 2013;22:727-33.
- 68. Mannion RJ, Guilfoyle MR, Efendy J, et al. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression: long-term outcome, morbidity, and the learning curve from the first 50 cases. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012;25:47-51.
- 69. Lee JC, Jang HD, Shin BJ. Learning curve and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: our experience in 86 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:1548-57.
- 70. Chaichankul C, Poopitaya S, Tassanawipas W. The effect of learning curve on the results of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy. J Med Assoc Thai 2012;95 Suppl 10:S206-12.
- 71. Wang B, Lü G, Patel AA, et al. An evaluation of the learning curve for a complex surgical technique: the full endoscopic interlaminar approach for lumbar disc herniations. Spine J 2011;11:122-30.
- 72. Tenenbaum S, Arzi H, Herman A, et al. Percutaneous posterolateral transforaminal endoscopic discectomy: clinical outcome, complications, and learning curve evaluation. Surg Technol Int 2011;21:278-83.
- 73. Lau D, Lee JG, Han SJ, et al. Complications and perioperative factors associated with learning the technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). J Clin Neurosci 2011;18:624-7.
- 74. Sairyo K, Sakai T, Higashino K, et al. Complications of endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 2010;53:175-8.
- 75. Jhala A, Mistry M. Endoscopic lumbar discectomy: experience of first 100 cases. Indian J Orthop 2010;44:184-90.
- 76. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 2009;33:1683-8.
- 77. Rong LM, Xie PG, Shi DH, et al. Spinal surgeons’ learning curve for lumbar microendoscopic discectomy: a prospective study of our first 50 and latest 10 cases. Chin Med J (Engl) 2008;121:2148-51.
- 78. Parikh K, Tomasino A, Knopman J, et al. Operative results and learning curve: microscope-assisted tubular microsurgery for 1- and 2-level discectomies and laminectomies. Neurosurg Focus 2008;25:E14.
- 79. McLoughlin GS, Fourney DR. The learning curve of minimally-invasive lumbar microdiscectomy. Can J Neurol Sci 2008;35:75-8.
- 80. Lee DY, Lee SH. Learning curve for percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2008;48:383-8. discussion 388-9.
- 81. Morgenstern R, Morgenstern C, Yeung AT. The learning curve in foraminal endoscopic discectomy: experience needed to achieve a 90% success rate. SAS J 2007;1:100-7.
- 82. Nowitzke AM. Assessment of the learning curve for lumbar microendoscopic discectomy. Neurosurgery 2005;56:755-62. discussion 755-62.
- 83. Wiese M, Krämer J, Bernsmann K, et al. The related outcome and complication rate in primary lumbar microscopic disc surgery depending on the surgeon’s experience: comparative studies. Spine J 2004;4:550-6.
- 84. Guiroy AJ, Duarte MP, Cabrera JP, et al. Neurosurgery versus orthopedic surgery: who has better access to minimally invasive spinal technology? Surg Neurol Int 2020;11:385.
- 85. Xiu P, Zhang X. Endoscopic spine surgery in China: its evolution, flourishment, and future opportunity for advances. J Spine Surg 2020;6(Suppl 1):S49-53.
- 86. Grieco A, Dell’aglio L, Del Verme J, et al. Monocentric experience of transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy and foraminotomy outcomes: pushing the indications and avoiding failure. Report of 200 cases. J Neurosurg Sci 2024;Jan 23 doi: 10.23736/S0390-5616.23.06105-2. [Epub].
- 87. Xu J, Li Y, Wang B, et al. Minimum 2-year efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus microendoscopic discectomy: a meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2020;138:19-26.
- 88. Li W, Wei H, Zhang R. Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. BMC Surg 2023;23:345.
- 89. Yu Y, Zhou Q, Xie YZ, et al. Effect of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar foraminoplasty of different facet joint portions on lumbar biomechanics: a finite element analysis. Orthop Surg 2020;12:1277-84.
- 90. Silav G, Arslan M, Comert A, et al. Relationship of dorsal root ganglion to intervertebral foramen in lumbar region: an anatomical study and review of literature. J Neurosurg Sci 2016;60:339-44.
- 91. Wu W, Yu R, Hao H, et al. Visible trephine-based foraminoplasty in PTED leads to asymmetrical stress changes and instability in the surgical and adjacent segments: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 2023;18:431.
- 92. Li J, Zhang X, Xu W, et al. Reducing the extent of facetectomy may decrease morbidity in failed back surgery syndrome. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019;20:369.
- 93. Pan M, Li Q, Li S, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy: indications and complications. Pain Physician 2020;23:49-56.
- 94. Zhou C, Zhang G, Panchal RR, et al. Unique complications of percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy and percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy. Pain Physician 2018;21:E105-12.
- 95. Liu Y, Kotheeranurak V, Quillo-Olvera J, et al. A 30-year worldwide research productivity of scientific publication in full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery: quantitative and qualitative analysis. Neurospine 2023;20:374-89.
- 96. Liu Y, Jitpakdee K, Van Isseldyk F, et al. Bibliometric analysis and description of research trends on transforaminal full-endoscopic approach on the spine for the last two-decades. Eur Spine J 2023;32:2647-61.
- 97. Bai J, Zhang W, Wang Y, et al. Application of transiliac approach to intervertebral endoscopic discectomy in L5/S1 intervertebral disc herniation. Eur J Med Res 2017;22:14.
- 98. Lewandrowski KU, Telfeian AE, Hellinger S, et al. Difficulties, challenges, and the learning curve of avoiding complications in lumbar endoscopic spine surgery. Int J Spine Surg 2021;15(suppl 3):S21-37.
- 99. Yu H, Zhao Q, Lv J, et al. Unintended dural tears during unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar surgery: incidence and risk factors. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2024;166:95.
- 100. Wang W, Liu Z, Wu S, et al. [Research of learning curves for unilateral biportal endoscopy technique and associated postoperative adverse events]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 2022;36:1221-8. Chinese.
- 101. Müller SJ, Burkhardt BW, Oertel JM. Management of dural tears in endoscopic lumbar spinal surgery: a review of the literature. World Neurosurg 2018;119:494-9.
- 102. Benzel EC, Orr RD. A steep learning curve is a good thing! Spine J 2011;11:131-2.
- 103. Ahn Y, Lee SG. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy: how I do it. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2022;164:933-6.
- 104. Choi I, Ahn JO, So WS, et al. Exiting root injury in transforaminal endoscopic discectomy: preoperative image considerations for safety. Eur Spine J 2013;22:2481-7.
- 105. Ahn Y, Kim JU, Lee BH, et al. Postoperative retroperitoneal hematoma following transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy. J Neurosurg Spine 2009;10:595-602.
- 106. Dave BR, Marathe N, Mayi S, et al. Does conventional open TLIF cause more muscle injury when compared to minimally invasive TLIF?-a prospective single center analysis. Global Spine J 2024;14:93-100.
- 107. Goh GS, Tay AYW, Zeng GJ, et al. Long-term results of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients: a 5-year follow-up study. Global Spine J 2023 Nov 9:21925682231214067doi: 10.1177/21925682231214067. [Epub].
- 108. Lightsey HM 4th, Pisano AJ, Striano BM, et al. ALIF versus TLIF for L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis: ALIF demonstrates superior segmental and regional radiographic outcomes and clinical improvements across more patient-reported outcome measures domains. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2022;47:808-16.
- 109. Liu Y, Park CW, Pholprajug P, et al. Efficacy of allograft versus bioactive glass-ceramic cage in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a randomized controlled study. Global Spine J 2023 Nov 29:21925682231219225doi: 10.1177/21925682231219225. [Epub].
- 110. Liu Y, Park CW, Sharma S, et al. Endoscopic anterior to psoas lumbar interbody fusion: indications, techniques, and clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J 2023;32:2776-95.
- 111. Takaoka H, Inage K, Eguchi Y, et al. Comparison between intervertebral oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter study. Sci Rep 2021;11:16673.
- 112. Kim JS, Lee KY, Lee SH, et al. Which lumbar interbody fusion technique is better in terms of level for the treatment of unstable isthmic spondylolisthesis? J Neurosurg Spine 2010;12:171-7.
- 113. Taba HA, Williams SK. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2020;31:33-42.
- 114. Malham GM, Ellis NJ, Parker RM, et al. Clinical outcome and fusion rates after the first 30 extreme lateral interbody fusions. ScientificWorldJournal 2012;2012:246989.
- 115. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg 2015;1:2-18.
- 116. Cummock MD, Vanni S, Levi AD, et al. An analysis of postoperative thigh symptoms after minimally invasive transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2011;15:11-8.
- 117. Kim JS, Kang BU, Lee SH, et al. Mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a comparison of surgical outcomes in adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009;22:114-21.
- 118. Phan K, Thayaparan GK, Mobbs RJ. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion--systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg 2015;29:705-11.
- 119. Naber KG. Cefotaxime in urinary tract infections. Infection 1989;17:425-8.
- 120. Dai J, Liu XF, Wang QL, et al. A new method for establishing operative channels in unilateral biportal endoscopic surgery: technical notes and preliminary results. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2023;36:367-75.
- 121. Abbasi H, Storlie NR, Aya KL. Transfacet oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion: technical description and early results. Cureus 2022;14:e26533.
- 122. Ma Y, Shen K, Zhou X, et al. A novel mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: technical note and preliminary results. J Orthop Surg Res 2023;18:517.
- 123. McAfee PC, Phillips FM, Andersson G, et al. Minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35(26 Suppl):S271-3.
- 124. Fenton-White HA. Trailblazing: the historical development of the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Spine J 2021;21:1528-41.
- 125. Liu Y, Suvithayasiri S, Kim JS. Commentary on “three-dimensional-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone cages for lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of comparative in vitro, animal, and human studies.”. Neurospine 2023;20:464-6.
- 126. Liu Y, Kim Y, Park CW, et al. Interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy versus microscopic lumbar discectomy: a preliminary analysis of L5-S1 lumbar disc herniation outcomes in prospective randomized controlled trials. Neurospine 2023;20:1457-68.
- 127. Fan G, Wang C, Gu X, et al. Trajectory planning and guided punctures with isocentric navigation in posterolateral endoscopic lumbar discectomy. World neurosurgery 2017;103:899-905. e4.
- 128. Tian NF, Xu HZ. Image-guided pedicle screw insertion accuracy: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop 2009;33:895-903.
- 129. Costa F, Cardia A, Ortolina A, et al. Spinal navigation: standard preoperative versus intraoperative computed tomography data set acquisition for computer-guidance system: radiological and clinical study in 100 consecutive patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:2094-8.
- 130. Shin BJ, James AR, Njoku IU, et al. Pedicle screw navigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perforation risk for computer-navigated versus freehand insertion. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;17:113-22.
- 131. Manni F, Mamprin M, Holthuizen R, et al. Multi-view 3D skin feature recognition and localization for patient tracking in spinal surgery applications. Biomed Eng Online 2021;20:6.
- 132. Van de Kelft E, Costa F, Van der Planken D, et al. A prospective multicenter registry on the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral levels with the use of the O-arm imaging system and StealthStation Navigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:E1580-7.
- 133. Ghasem A, Sharma A, Greif DN, et al. The arrival of robotics in spine surgery: a review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018;43:1670-7.
- 134. Keric N, Eum DJ, Afghanyar F, et al. Evaluation of surgical strategy of conventional vs. percutaneous robot-assisted spinal trans-pedicular instrumentation in spondylodiscitis. J Robot Surg 2017;11:17-25.
- 135. Lonjon N, Chan-Seng E, Costalat V, et al. Robot-assisted spine surgery: feasibility study through a prospective casematched analysis. Eur Spine J 2016;25:947-55.
- 136. Roser F, Tatagiba M, Maier G. Spinal robotics: current applications and future perspectives. Neurosurgery 2013;72 Suppl 1:12-8.
- 137. Liu Y, Lee MG, Kim JS. Spine surgery assisted by augmented reality: where have we been? Yonsei Med J 2022;63:305-16.
- 138. Liu Y, Van Isseldyk F, Kotheeranurak V, et al. Transforaminal endoscopic decompression for foraminal stenosis: single-arm meta-analysis and systematic review. World Neurosurg 2022;168:381-91.
- 139. Goudman L, Jansen J, Billot M, et al. Virtual reality applications in chronic pain management: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Serious Games 2022;10:e34402.
- 140. He D, Cao S, Le Y, et al. Virtual reality technology in cognitive rehabilitation application: bibliometric analysis. JMIR Serious Games 2022;10:e38315.
- 141. Huang TK, Yang CH, Hsieh YH, et al. Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) applied in dentistry. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 2018;34:243-8.
- 142. Luciano CJ, Banerjee PP, Bellotte B, et al. Learning retention of thoracic pedicle screw placement using a high-resolution augmented reality simulator with haptic feedback. Neurosurgery 2011;69(1 Suppl Operative):ons14-9. discussion ons19.
- 143. Gasco J, Patel A, Ortega-Barnett J, et al. Virtual reality spine surgery simulation: an empirical study of its usefulness. Neurol Res 2014;36:968-73.
- 144. Buchanan IA, Min E, Pham MH, et al. Simulation of dural repair in minimally invasive spine surgery with the use of a perfusion-based cadaveric model. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2019;17:616-21.
- 145. Scherman DB, Madani D, Gambhir S, et al. Predictors of clinical failure after endoscopic lumbar spine surgery during the initial learning curve. World Neurosurg 2024;182:e506-16.
, Zhihe Yun1,*
