Literature Decoded

Living reprintoriginally published in Frontiers in Surgery 2022CC BY 4.0Read the version of record Opt out

Literature DecodedLiving reprint
Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

The Learning Curve of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) Spinal Surgery by CUSUM Analysis

Study first published in Frontiers in Surgery (2022), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Lei Chen1, Bin Zhu1, Hua-zhang Zhong1, Yi-guo Wang1, Yi-song Sun1, Qi-fei Wang1, Jian-jun Liu1, Da-sheng Tian1*, Jue-hua Jing1*

1Department of Orthopedics, The Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China*Corresponding author

Reprinted 2026-10-01 19 min read Living reprint · journal article Version of record: Frontiers in Surgery 2022Licence: CC BY 4.0

Reading mode
In plain languageStudy first published in Frontiers in Surgery (2022), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Study first published in Frontiers in Surgery (2022), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

Bottom line

What the evidence supports

How to read it

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Limitations

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Disclaimer

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The paper

Full manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To assess the learning curve of the unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique for the treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation by cumulative summation (CUSUM) method analysis.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted to assess 97 patients' general condition, operation time, complications, and curative effect of single segmental UBE surgery performed by a spinal surgeon in his early stage of this technique. The learning curve of operation time was studied using a CUSUM method, and the cut-off point of the learning curve was obtained.

Results

The operation time was 30 – 241(97.9 ± 34.7) min. The visual analog scale score of lower limb pain decreased from 5.75 ± 0.81 before the operation to 0.39 ± 0.28 at the last follow-up (P < 0.05). The Oswestry disability index score decreased from 66.48 ± 4.43 before the operation to 14.57 ± 3.99 at the last follow-up (P < 0.05). The CUSUM assessment of operation time revealed the learning curve was the highest in 24 cases. In the learning stage (1–24 cases), the operation time was 120.3 ± 43.8 min. In the skilled stage (25–97 cases), the operation time was 90.5 ± 27.8 min.

Conclusions

About 24 cases of single segmental UBE operation are needed to master the UBE technique.

Keywords: unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery; learning curve; lumbar disc herniation; cumulative summation; operative time

Introduction

Lumbar disc herniation is a common disease that presents as low back pain, lower limb pain, numbness, weakness, or claudication, with a lifetime prevalence of 12.2–43%1. Conservative treatment can be tried for patients with mild symptoms and without progressive decline2. However, for patients whose conservative treatment failed, surgery may be the best option3, 4. In recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) spinal surgery for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases and other diseases has gradually increased5–8. It is generally believed that UBE surgery has the advantages of a wider field of vision, flexible operation, minimally invasive, and contributing to full nerve decompression and faster recovery9.

Applicable to the most skilled spinal surgeons, there are still some difficulties and risks in the early implementation of UBE technology10. Navigating the UBE learning curve is a concern for most surgeons who wish to use this technology. At present, there are still few studies on the learning curve of UBE technology. We adopt the cumulative summation (CUSUM) method to analyze the relationship between the number of repeated operations using UBE technology and the possibility of a successful single operation to provide a quantitative basis for determining the optimal number of repetitions in the learning process11. In addition, the potential methods to shorten the learning curve of UBE were empirically summarized. Through all these, it may provide some references for doctors interested in performing UBE surgery.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the ethics committee of the Second Hospital of Anhui Medical University (No. SL-YX2018-324(F1)). Patients with single segmental lumbar disc herniation treated in the Department of Orthopedics of the second Hospital of Anhui Medical University from November 2018 to May 2020 were studied, and UBE spinal surgery was performed entirely by the same doctor. All patients signed the informed consent form according to the standard of diagnosis and treatment before operation. The inclusion criteria that were used are as follows: (1) patients with single-segment lumbar disc herniation, who have clear surgical indications, (2) American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) levels I–III, and (3) complete follow-up data can be obtained and the follow-up period is at least 18 months. The exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) patients with extreme lateral, very middle, or bilateral disc herniation, (2) patients with other serious diseases, (3) patients with previous lumbar surgery history, (4) patients with lumbar instability, lumbar infection, or lumbar tumor, (5) patients with the multisegmental lumbar disease need to be treated, (6) a patient whose operation is performed by another doctor. According to the above inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 97 patients were enrolled in this study.

Surgical Technique

The patient underwent general anesthesia and was placed in the prone position. With C-arm fluoroscopy, adjustments to the operating bed were made, so that the target intervertebral space is as perpendicular to the ground as possible. Taking the intersection of the upper and lower 1–1.5 cm of the target intervertebral space and the inner edge of the pedicle as the center, a 1–1.5 cm transverse incision was made. The left-hand incision serves as the observation channel (portal), and the right-hand incision serves as the working channel. The bilateral channels were dilated with a step-by-step dilator and the lower edge of the superior lamina and the interlaminar space can be touched by the dilator. The operator held the arthroscope in his left hand and the instrument in his right hand. Through the two channels, the camera lens and instrument will meet in the space around the interlaminar window in a continuous perfusion water environment.

The structures such as the inferior edge of the superior lamina, the root of the spinous process, the upper edge of the inferior lamina, the inner edge of the facet joint, and interlaminar ligamentum flavum were exposed using a plasma radio-frequency knife. Tools such as the power grinding drill, osteotome, and gun rongeur were used to remove bones of, for example, the lower edge of the upper lamina, the upper edge of the lower lamina, and the medial side of the facet joint. Then the ligamentum flavum was removed. The intervertebral disc that compressed the nerve was explored and removed. After confirming that there was no nerve compression or active bleeding, the instrument was removed and the incision was closed. A representative case is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) diskectomy was performed on a 47-year-old male patient with L4/5 lumbar disc herniation. (A,B) Preoperative anteroposterior and lateral plain radiographs; (C,D) preoperative flexion and extension radiographs; (E) preoperative CT scans; (F–H) preoperative MRI scans; (I) diskectomy was performed to ensure adequate decompression of the nerve tissue; (J) postoperative 3D-CT scans; and (K,L) postoperative MRI scans.

Surgeon's experience: the surgeon, a senior orthopedic (spinal surgery subspecialty) doctor, independently completed more than 500 single-portal spinal endoscopic operations and more than 1,000 lumbar open decompression operations before starting these cases, and completed spinal minimally invasive (including UBE) related training in a number of spinal centers. The first assistant is one of two regular spinal surgeons.

Observation Indicators

(1) General patient demographics and condition: age, sex, and underlying disease; (2) preoperative-related indexes: duration of preoperative symptoms, preoperative visual analog scale score (VAS), Oswestry disability index score (ODI), and target segment dural sac area; (3) indexes related to operation: operation time and amount of bleeding; (4) postoperative-related indicators: postoperative hospital stay, VAS score, ODI score, Macnab grade (the patient is asked to rate his level of wellbeing, generally after surgery; the patient choose one of the four: (1) excellent, (2) good, (3) fair, and (4) poor)12, and target segment dural sac area, complications, and reoperation.

Statistical Analysis

SPSS20.0 software was used for statistical analysis. The independent samples Student's t-test was used to compare the measurement data between groups, and the paired samples Student's t-test was used to compare the measurement data before and after the operation. The chi-square test was used to compare categorical parameters. Significance was assigned at P < 0.05.

The learning curve was analyzed by CUSUM analysis. The formula is as follows: CUSUM = ∑i = 1n(Xi-u). Xi indicates the actual operation time for each patient and u indicates the average operation time of this group of patients. The difference between the operation time of each patient in chronological order and the average operation time of the whole group was summed and the learning curve was obtained.

Results

There were 52 men and 45 women. The age was 21.0–86.0 (51.5 ± 15.4) years old. The body mass index was 16.1–31.6 (23.9 ± 4.8) kg/m2. The duration of preoperative symptoms was 1–240 (24.4 ± 39.5) months. Among the 97 patients, 19 cases were complicated with hypertension, diabetes, old cerebral infarction, rheumatoid, etc. The detailed demographic data are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic factors of patients included in this study.
CharacteristicValue
Patients (n)97
Age (years)
Mean ± SD51.5 ± 15.4
Range21–86
Sex (n)
Male52
Female45
Body mass index (kg/m2)
Mean ± SD23.9 ± 4.8
Range16.1–31.6
Operative level (n)
L3/49
L4/540
L5/S148
Patents with basic disease (n)19
Duration of symptoms (months)
Mean ± SD24.4 ± 39.5
Range1–240

All 97 patients underwent the UBE operation successfully. The follow-up time was 18–36 (22.6 ± 3.6) months. The operation time was 30–241 (97.9 ± 34.7) min. The estimated intraoperative blood loss was 10–50 (20.4 ± 5.0) ml. The postoperative hospital stay was 1–14 (4.4 ± 2.1) days. The VAS score of lower limb pain decreased from 5.75 ± 0.81 before the operation to 0.39 ± 0.28 at the last follow-up (P < 0.05). The ODI score decreased from 66.48 ± 4.43 before the operation to 14.57 ± 3.99 at the last follow-up (P < 0.05). The postoperative MacNab grade was grade 1 in 84 cases (86.6%), grade 2 in 7 cases (7.2%), grade 3 in 6 cases (6.2%), and grade 4 in 0 cases. The area of the dural sac at the narrowest part of the target segment increased from 89.34 ± 32.85 mm2 to 140.86 ± 39.87 mm2 (P < 0.05).

During the follow-up, 4 complications occurred. Complications of dural injury were found in 2 cases, of which 1 case was managed by wound expansion and suture in the later stage of incision eminence and exudation. A total of 2 cases of residual nerve compression of intervertebral disc herniation were cured by percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy surgery. The preoperative and postoperative characteristics of the whole group of cases are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Preoperative and postoperative characteristics of the whole cohort.
CharacteristicPreoperativeLast follow-upP-value*
Leg VAS5.75 ± 0.810.39 ± 0.28<0.001
ODI66.48 ± 4.4314.57 ±3.99<0.001
Sac cross-sectional area89.34 ± 32.85140.86 ± 39.87<0.001
Macnab criteria
1 (Excellent)84 (86.6%)
2 (Good)7 (7.2%)
3 (Fair)6 (6.2%)
4 (Poor)0 (0%)

Data presented as mean ± SD for numerical parameters and as n (%) for categorical parameters.

* Statistical analyses were performed between the preoperative and postoperative characteristics by paired samples student t-test.

The operation time showed a downward trend as a whole. The scatter chart of the operation time is shown in Figure 2. The CUSUM analysis curve of the learning curve is shown in Figure 3. CUSUM method showed that the curve reached the maximum in the no. 24 case, and then decreased gradually. So the cut-off point of the learning curve was selected as 24 cases. According to the cut-off point, the curve could be divided into two stages: the first stage was the learning stage in which the CUSUM value was increasing (the first 24 cases), and the latter stage was the proficiency stage in which the CUSUM value gradually decreased (after 24 cases).

Figure 2
Figure 2. The scatter chart of the operation time showed a downward trend. The dashed line was automatically linear fitted by SPSS software.
Figure 3
Figure 3. CUSUM for learning curve reached the maximum in no. 24 case, revealed competency after 24 cases.

Comparison of general data between the two stages: there was no significant difference between the two stages in terms of sex, age, body mass index, preoperative complications, duration of preoperative symptoms, preoperative lower limb VAS score, preoperative ODI score, preoperative dural sac area, and operative level (P > 0.05). The general characteristics stratified by learning period are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. General characteristics stratified by learning period.
CharacteristicEarly cases (1–24)Late cases (25–97)P-value*
Patients (n)2473
Age (years)50.5 ± 15.951.9 ± 15.30.703
Sex (male to female)10:1442:310.239
Body mass index (kg/m2)23.3 ± 5.224.1 ± 4.70.386
Patents with basic disease (n)4 (16.7%)15 (20.5%)0.465
Preoperative duration of symptoms (months)19.1 ± 31.526.2 ± 41.80.447
Preoperative leg VAS5.55 ± 0.815.81 ± 0.800.161
Preoperative ODI65.71 ± 4.9066.74 ± 4.270.325
Preoperative sac cross-sectional area91.80 ± 25.9088.53 ± 34.830.674
Operative level (L3/4:L4/5:L5/S1)2:11:117:29:370.102

Data presented as mean ± SD for numerical parameters, and as n (%) for categorical parameters.

* Statistical analyses were performed between early and late groups.

Comparison of the clinical effects of the two stages: the operation time, postoperative hospital stay, and the proportion of Macnabcriteria1 grade in the second stage were improved from the first stage (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications, VAS, ODI, and postoperative dural sac area between the two stages (P > 0.05). The clinical effect characteristics according to the learning period are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Clinical effect characteristics stratified by learning period.
CharacteristicEarly cases (1–24)Late cases (25–97)P-value*
Patients2473
Operative time (min)120.3 ± 43.890.5 ± 27.80.004
Postoperative hospital stay (days)4.7 ± 2.43.9 ± 1.80.037
Complications (n)2 (8.33%)2 (2.74%)0.255
Last follow-up leg VAS0.35 ± 0.310.37 ± 0.270.783
Last follow-up ODI11.21 ± 3.8215.67 ± 3.400.104
Last follow-up sac cross-sectional area147.84 ± 44.45138.57 ± 38.300.326
Macnab criteria I(Excellent)18 (75.0%)66 (90.4%)0.044

Data presented as mean ± SD for numerical parameters and as n (%) for categorical parameters.

* Statistical analyses were performed between early and late groups.

Discussion

The ideal management strategy for lumbar disc herniation remains controversial13. Surgical treatment is a common method of treatment, which can be more effective than conservative treatment in patients with severe lumbar spinal nerve compression14. With the main purpose of surgery to relieve nerve compression, there are many ways of performing the operation, namely, open surgery, microscopic surgery, and percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery15. Decompression combined with internal fixation is not superior to simple decompression in many cases16. In recent years, there have been increasing reports of UBE surgery for lumbar disc herniation and lumbar spinal stenosis5–8. In addition, the UBE technique can be used for nerve decompression of burst fracture17, excision of the perispinal cyst18, 19, clearance of epidural abscess20, treatment of epidural lipomatosis21, treatment of foraminal stenosis8, 22, lumbar interbody fusion6, and revision surgery23.

The unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique uses an independent working channel, which can achieve complete decompression under a wide visual field of the arthroscopy9. During the making of the channel, there is no need to strip away too much soft tissue. The lens and instrument are operated directly through soft tissue channels to the target. We found in our practice that even for obese patients, no significant difficulty was increased in the surgery. The channel provides less restriction for instrument movement, and the continuous perfusion of saline during the operation is a major advantage for infection prevention. Compared with microscope technology, UBE technology has a higher success rate, shorter operation time and hospital stay24. In our study, 86.6% of patients got MacNab grade 1. Most surgeons choose a 30-degree arthroscopic lens, which can be used to observe the lateral structure of the lens because of its wide field of view25. UBE technique can allow visualization of the contralateral spinal canal and intervertebral foramen5. Compared with percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery, the UBE technique has less radiation exposure26. The injury of the multifidus muscle after UBE is minimal27. Other advantages of the UBE technique are less destruction of the facet joint, lower incidence of complications, a lesser degree of postoperative back pain, and higher satisfaction24, 28–30. UBE technique can essentially be used as an alternative to the microscope technique31, 32. Compared with microscopic surgery, endoscopic surgery such as UBE has been found to contribute to less pain in the early stage after the operation33. In addition, the implementation of UBE technology does not require the purchase of special lenses and instruments as seen in the percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic technique. UBE can use general arthroscopic lenses and open spinal surgical instruments, which is more conducive to wide acceptance in most hospitals.

The unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique requires both hands to operate the lens and surgical instruments and requires sufficient coordination of both hands and stable instrument operation with a single hand. In the early stage, it is difficult for spinal surgeons who have no experience in using arthroscopic equipment to coordinate the depth and direction of the lens, move the instruments quickly and smoothly in and out of the instrument channel and quickly acquire the field of vision. If the operation is performed incorrectly, complications such as dural injury often occur in UBE surgery10. A total of 2 cases of dural injury were found in our patients, too. These have higher requirements for the surgeon's UBE technology, the cooperation of the surgical team, and the perioperative management, which have become a big obstacle to the further popularization and development of this technology. Navigating the learning curve quickly and safely is a core issue in the clinical application of UBE. At present, there are many studies on the learning curve of transforaminal endoscopy, but few studies exist on the learning curve of UBE technology.

As a new technology for the minimally invasive spine, UBE contributes a certain learning curve, which is mainly reflected in operation time and complications. CUSUM method is a quantitative analysis method for analyzing the learning curve of surgical techniques11. Many other studies on the learning curve of surgical techniques are mostly based on the method of grouping all cases in order, which is subjective. And the cut-off point of the learning curve is often an integer multiple of the number of grouped cases, so the results are inaccurate. In our study, the CUSUM method is selected for the analysis. To obtain the operation time of each patient, the relationship between the operation time of each patient and the average value of the group is calculated, and the approximate parabola curve is obtained. At the highest point of the parabola curve, the learning curve is divided into two stages. According to the formula, the operation time of most cases before the highest point of the parabola is longer than the average operation time, and the operation time of most cases after the highest point is < the average operation time. There is no need for artificial subjective grouping in the study of the CUSUM method, which is more objective and accurate than the grouping method34–36. According to the highest point of the CUSUM curve (Figure 3), there were 1–24 cases in the early stage of this study and 25–97 cases in the later stage. This graph reveals that the initial curve is very steep, but it does not take too many cases to reach the highest point. With the increase in the number of cases (after 24 cases), the CUSUM curve of operation time showed a downward trend to be stable in the later stage. Evidence of the gradual decrease of operation time can also be seen in the scatter chart of operation time (Figure 2). This shows that the difficulties encountered at the beginning of UBE technology, such as long operation time, are short-lived. After a period of learning and acclimation, the surgeons become more familiar with the surgical equipment and surgical procedures. Meanwhile, with the gradual optimization of the operating room procedures and the cooperation of other personnel, the learning curve gradually becomes more stable.

Through the comparison of the data of the two stages, there is no statistical difference in the general condition and preoperative index of the patients. But the operation time, postoperative hospital stay, and the proportion of Macnabcriteria1 grade in the second stage are all improved from those in the first stage, and the difference is statistically significant. This may be due to multiple reasons: the technique of the surgeon improves; the cooperation of fixed assistants gains understanding; anesthesia, nursing, and other surgical team cooperation are gradually optimized, and perioperative management is optimized. Although the operation time shortened with the learning stage, there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications, last follow-up VAS, ODI, and the area of the dural sac after operation between the two stages. This indicated that in our earliest cases, although it takes a longer time to operate, it still ensures a clinical effect and safety that is essentially the same as that in the mature stage. Looking at the CUSUM curve, it shows that in about 42–52 cases, the curve increased slightly again. This occurrence may be related to the increasing challenge of more difficult and complex cases after the surgical technique becomes proficient. Usually, as the technique is mastered, surgeons will unconsciously extend the application of the technique to more difficult cases that they may be reluctant to choose at an early stage11. As we can see in our cases, the proportion of patients with the basic disease and the duration of preoperative symptoms in the second stage cases were higher than those in the first stage, although there was no significant statistical difference (Table 3).

What is the difference between the learning curve of the UBE technique and other invasive techniques such as percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery? With regard to the learning curve of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery, the cut-off point reported in the early literature was about 40–70 cases37, 38, while the cut-off point reported later in the new literature was about 20 cases39, 40. However, like the early explorers of UBE technology in China, it only takes about 24 cases to master this technique skillfully, and its learning curve is shorter than that of transforaminal endoscopic surgery reported in the early literature. The shortening of the learning curve means that the operation time, hospital stay, operation costs, and complications can be reduced in a short time, which is more beneficial to patients and more likely to be recognized by surgeons. UBE technology provides the advantages of minimally invasive percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery and flexible operation of open surgery, so it is currently being widely promoted in China.

What factors can optimize the learning curve? According to our experience, surgeons need rich experience in spinal surgery before carrying out this technique, and it is better to have experience in single-portal spinal endoscopy such as percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery and double-portal endoscopic surgery such as arthroscopy surgery. At the same time, the surgeon must be trained in UBE technology. Our department has held UBE training using the plastic model and the fresh specimens of piglet spine many times, which is helpful for the surgeons to successfully overcome the steep learning curve of UBE technology. In the early stage, one should try to select the cases with typical, unilateral symptoms, clear surgical indications, less degeneration, less operative area complexity, and then gradually carry out the more difficult cases after gaining skill. Some special instruments needed in UBE, such as arthroscopy, plasma-mediated ablation probes, radio-frequency probes, and grinding drill, must be well prepared. Our general experience is for a right-handed surgeon to place arthroscope, water perfusion equipment, and other observation equipment on the left hand, while radio-frequency probe, grinding drill, and other energy power equipment on the right hand to avoid entanglement of the devices. Maintaining a clear field of vision requires the anesthesia team to provide an adequate degree of anesthesia, maintain normal blood pressure, and good muscle relaxation. This requires communication and coordination with the anesthesia team. During the operation, it is necessary to maintain the appropriate water pressure of the operating cavity. And one must pay attention to the appropriate perfusion pressure and the placement of the casing, and keep the effluent unobstructed at all times41.

Conclusions

As a new minimally invasive endoscopic technique for the spine, UBE surgery requires coordination of both hands and one-handed operation of instruments. The learning curve is steep, but a few cases (about 24 cases) are required to overcome the learning curve. If the learning curve can be navigated smoothly, this technology can provide the advantages of less surgical trauma, flexible and efficient operation under the endoscope, and rapid recovery after the operation. In this study, CUSUM analysis was used to analyze the learning curve of a single segmental UBE in the operation of lumbar disc herniation performed by the same surgeon in the early stage. The results show that after experiencing the learning curve of 24 cases, the surgeon can reach a more skilled and stable level of operation, and can significantly reduce the operation time and improve satisfaction. In summary, the steep learning curve in the early stage can be mitigated by strengthening and training before performing this operation and selecting less complex cases in the early stage.

This study does have limitations. This study analyzes cases performed by a single surgeon that already has rich experience in open and endoscopic spinal surgery before this procedure, providing a shorter learning curve, while for young surgeons with less experience, the learning curve of UBE may be longer. However, as a very early explorer of UBE in China, the surgeon can learn from less UBE experience, and the initial development is slow progress. Later operators may have more experience to learn from and may need fewer cases to overcome the learning curve. Another limitation is that only single segment lumbar disc herniation cases are selected, multisegment and other diseases were excluded. Although the use of UBE technology for other diseases may have an impact on the cut-off point of the learning curve, the vast majority of early UBE techniques are used to treat single-segment lumbar disc herniation. Therefore, this aspect should contribute little impact on the UBE learning curve.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Scientific Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

LC: conceptualization, validation, data curation, and writing—original draft. BZ: investigation. H-zZ: software. Y-gW: methodology. Y-sS: formal analysis. Q-fW: investigation. J-jL: visualization. D-sT: methodology and formal analysis. J-hJ: conceptualization and supervision. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abbreviations

Abbreviations

UBE
Unilateral biportal endoscopy
CUSUM
Cumulative summation
VAS
Visual analog scale
ODI
Oswestry disability index.

Declarations

This article was submitted to Orthopedic Surgery, a section of the journal Frontiers in Surgery

Sources

References

41 references, in the article's own order. Citation numbers in the text are this list's numbers (38 records are cited).

  1. Sciatica: review of epidemiological studies and prevalence estimates

    Konstantinou K, Dunn KM

    2008Spine. 33:2464–72 · PMID 18923325doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e318183a4a2

  2. Conservative treatment for giant lumbar disc herniation: clinical study in 409 cases

    Ma Z, Yu P, Jiang H, Li X, Qian X, Yu Z, et al.

    2021Pain Physician 24:E639–48 · PMID 34323452doi:10.36076/ppj.2021.24.E639

  3. Current concepts for lumbar disc herniation

    Benzakour T, Igoumenou V, Mavrogenis AF, Benzakour A

    2018Int Orthop · PMID 30506088doi:10.1007/s00264-018-4247-6

  4. Ahn SH. Surgical versus conservative treatment for lumbar disc herniation with motor weakness

    Choi HS, Kwak KW, Kim SW

    2013J Korean Neurosurg Soc 54:183–8 · PMID 24278645doi:10.3340/jkns.2013.54.3.183

  5. Percutaneous biportal endoscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a technical note and preliminary clinical results

    Hwa EJ, Hwa HD, Son SK, Park CK

    2016J Neurosurg Spine 24:602–7 · PMID 26722954doi:10.3171/2015.7.SPINE15304

  6. Fully endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using a percutaneous unilateral biportal endoscopic technique: technical note and preliminary clinical results

    Heo DH, Son SK, Eum JH, Park CK

    2017Neurosurg Focus 43:E8 · PMID 28760038doi:10.3171/2017.5.FOCUS17146

  7. Can percutaneous biportal endoscopic surgery achieve enough canal decompression for degenerative lumbar stenosis? prospective case-control study

    Heo DH, Quillo-Olvera J, Park CK

    2018World Neurosurg 120:e684–9 · PMID 30165228doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.08.144

  8. Extraforaminal approach of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery: a new endoscopic technique for transforaminal decompression and discectomy

    Ahn JS, Lee HJ, Choi DJ, Lee KY, Hwang SJ

    2018J Neurosurg Spine 28:492–8 · PMID 29473790doi:10.3171/2017.8.SPINE17771

  9. A review of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis, Int J Spine Surg

    Pao JL

    202115:S65–71 · PMID 35027470doi:10.14444/8165

  10. Dural injury in unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery

    Lee HG, Kang MS, Kim SY, Cho K, Na Y, Cho J

    2021Global Spine J 11:845–51 · PMID 32762357doi:10.1177/2192568220941446

  11. Statistical evaluation of learning curve effects in surgical trials

    Cook JA, Ramsay CR, Fayers P

    2004Clin Trials 1:421–7 · PMID 16279280doi:10.1191/1740774504cn042oa

  12. Negative disc exploration. an analysis of the causes of nerve-root involvement in 68 patients

    Macnab I

    1971J Bone Joint Surg Am 53:891–903 · PMID 4326746doi:10.2106/00004623-197153050-00004

  13. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis

    Zaina F, Tomkins-Lane C, Carragee E, Negrini S

    2016Spine Phila Pa 41:E857–68 · PMID 27128388doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001635

  14. Surgical versus non-surgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis

    Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Anna NA, Tosteson SD, Emily Blood MS, et al.

    2008N Engl J Med 358:794–810 · PMID 18287602doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0707136

  15. Eight surgical interventions for lumbar disc herniation: a network meta-analysis on complications

    Wei FL, Li T, Gao QY, Yang Y, Gao HR, Qian JX., et al.

    2021Front Surg 8:679142 · PMID 34355013doi:10.3389/fsurg.2021.679142

  16. A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis

    Försth P, Ólafsson G, Carlsson T, Frost A, Borgström F, Fritzell P, et al.

    2016N Engl J Med 374:1413–23 · PMID 27074066doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1513721

  17. Unilateral biportal endoscopic-guided transcorporeal vertebroplasty with neural decompression for treating a traumatic lumbar fracture of L5

    Quillo-Olvera J, Quillo-Olvera D, Quillo-Reséndiz J, Barrera-Arreola M

    2020World Neurosurg 144:74–81 · PMID 32841799doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.08.130

  18. Biportal endoscopic excision of facetal cyst in the far lateral region of L5S1:2-dimensional operative video

    Sharma SB, Lin GX, Jabri H, Siddappa ND, Kim JS

    2020Oper Neurosurg. (Hagerstown). 18:E233 · PMID 31504842doi:10.1093/ons/opz255

  19. Surgical treatment of extra-foraminal gas containing pseudocyst compressing L5 nerve root by using unilateral biportal endosopy: a case report

    An JW, Lee CW

    2019World Neurosurg 124:145–50 · PMID 30659964doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.12.186

  20. Spinal epidural abscess successfully treated with biportal endoscopic spinal surgery

    Kang T, Park SY, Lee SH, Park JH, Suh SW

    2019Medicine. (Baltimore) 98:e18231 · PMID 31852084doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000018231

  21. A novel percutaneous biportal endoscopic technique for symptomatic spinal epidural lipomatosis: technical note and case presentations

    Kang SS, Lee SC, Kim SK

    2019World Neurosurg 129:49–54 · PMID 31154106doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.05.214

  22. How i do it: L5/S1 foraminal stenosis and far-lateral lumbar disc herniation with unilateral bi-portal endoscopy

    Park JH, Jung JT, Lee SJ

    2018Acta Neurochir. (Wien) 160:1899–903 · PMID 30066192doi:10.1007/s00701-018-3630-9

  23. The technical feasibility of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression for the unpredicted complication following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: case report

    Kim KR, Park JY

    2020Neurospine 17(Suppl. 1):S154–9 · PMID 32746529doi:10.14245/ns.2040174.087

  24. Clinical and radiological outcomes between biportal endoscopic decompression and microscopic decompression in lumbar spinal stenosis

    Min WK, Kim JE, Choi DJ, Park EJ, Heo J

    2020J Orthop Sci 25:371–8 · PMID 31255456doi:10.1016/j.jos.2019.05.022

  25. Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression by 30° endoscopy in lumbar spinal stenosis: technical note and preliminary report

    Kim JE, Choi DJ

    2018J Orthop 15:366–71 · PMID 29881155doi:10.1016/j.jor.2018.01.039

  26. Comparison of radiation exposure among 3 different endoscopic diskectomy techniques for lumbar disk herniation

    Merter A, Karaeminogullari O, Shibayama M

    2020World Neurosurg 139:e572–9 · PMID 32330613doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.079

  27. Multifidus muscle changes after biportal endoscopic spinal surgery: magnetic resonance imaging evaluation

    Ahn JS, Lee HJ, Park EJ, Kim SB, Choi D, Kwon Y, et al.

    2019World Neurosurg 130:e525–34 · PMID 31254694doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.06.148

  28. Unilateral biportal endoscopy versus tubular microendoscopy in management of single level degenerative lumbar canal stenosis: a prospective study

    Aygun H, Abdulshafi K

    2021Clin Spine Surg · PMID 33470660doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000001122

  29. Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic laminectomy versus microendoscopic laminectomy for single-level laminectomy: a single-center, retrospective analysis

    Ito Z, Shibayama M, Nakamura S, Yamada M, Kawai M, Takeuchi M, et al.

    2021World Neurosurg 148:e581–8 · PMID 33476779doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2021.01.031

  30. Is biportal technique/endoscopic spinal surgery satisfactory for lumbar spinal stenosis patients? a prospective randomized comparative study

    Kang T, Park SY, Kang CH, Lee SH, Park JH, Suh SW

    2019Medicine. (Baltimore) 98:e15451 · PMID 31045817doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000015451

  31. Biportal endoscopic versus microscopic lumbar decompressive laminectomy in patients with spinal stenosis: a randomized controlled trial

    Park SM, Park J, Jang HS, et al.

    2020Spine J 20:156–65 · PMID 31542473doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2019.09.015

  32. Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery versus microscopic decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Pranata R, Lim MA, Vania R, July J

    2020World Neurosurg 138:e450–8 · PMID 32147545doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.02.151

  33. Comparative analysis of three types of minimally invasive decompressive surgery for lumbar central stenosis: biportal endoscopy, uniportal endoscopy, and microsurgery

    Heo DH, Lee DC, Park CK

    2019Neurosurg Focus 46:E9 · PMID 31042664doi:10.3171/2019.2.FOCUS197

  34. Swiss Surg

    Buchmann P, Steurer J

    20028:106–9 · PMID 12125332doi:10.1024/1023-9332.8.3.106

  35. Use of cumulative summation

    Chan G, Pautler SE

    2019Can Urol Assoc J 13:53–8 · PMID 30138097doi:10.5489/cuaj.5350

  36. CUSUM: a tool for early feedback about performance

    Chang WR, McLean IP

    2006BMC Med Res Methodol 6:8 · PMID 16509997doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-8

  37. The learning curve in foraminal endoscopic discectomy: experience needed to achieve a 90% success rate

    Morgenstern R, Morgenstern C, Yeung AT

    2007SAS J 1:100–7 · PMID 25802586doi:10.1016/S1935-9810(07)70054-3

  38. Percutaneous posterolateral transforaminal endoscopic discectomy: clinical outcome, complications, and learning curve evaluation

    Tenenbaum S, Arzi H, Herman A, Friedlander A, Levinkopf M, Arnold PM

    2011Surg Technol Int 21:278–83 · PMID 22505002

  39. Learning curve of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar discectomy by a single surgeon

    Son S, Ahn Y, Lee SG, Kim WK, Yoo BR, Jung JM, et al.

    2021Medicine. (Baltimore) 100:e24346 · PMID 33530228doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000024346

  40. Learning curve and clinical outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis

    Yang J, Guo C, Kong Q, Zhang B, Wang Y, Zhang L, et al.

    2020Int Orthop 44:309–17 · PMID 31773186doi:10.1007/s00264-019-04448-1

  41. Water dynamics in unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery and its related factors: an in vivo proportional regression and proficiency-matched study

    Hong YH, Kim SK, Hwang J, Eum J-H, Heo D-H, Suh D-W, et al.

    2021World Neurosurg 149:e836–43 · PMID 33540105doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2021.01.086

Article record

The record

Status

Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

Status
Version of record: Frontiers in Surgery 2022
Journal version
Frontiers in Surgery (2022) · doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.873691
Confirmed
2022-04-29
Licence
CC BY 4.0

This reprint has no DOI of its own: cite the journal article.

The journal's version is the version of record. This page re-typesets it under the article's licence; where they differ, the journal's version is authoritative.

Version history

  1. Published in Frontiers in Surgery2022-04-29
  2. Living reprint on Literature Decoded2026-10-01
  3. Reprinted here2026-10-01
  4. This HTML2026-10-01

Cite this article

Citation
Chen L, Zhu B, Zhong H, Wang Y, Sun Y, Wang Q, et al. The Learning Curve of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) Spinal Surgery by CUSUM Analysis. Front Surg. 2022;9:873691. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.873691
BibTeX
@article{Chen2022The,
  title     = {The Learning Curve of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) Spinal Surgery by CUSUM Analysis},
  author    = {Lei Chen and Bin Zhu and Hua-zhang Zhong and Yi-guo Wang and Yi-song Sun and Qi-fei Wang and Jian-jun Liu and Da-sheng Tian and Jue-hua Jing},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Surgery},
  year      = {2022},
  volume    = {9},
  pages     = {873691},
  doi       = {10.3389/fsurg.2022.873691},
  pmid      = {35574554},
  publisher = {Frontiers Media SA}
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - The Learning Curve of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) Spinal Surgery by CUSUM Analysis
AU  - Lei Chen
AU  - Bin Zhu
AU  - Hua-zhang Zhong
AU  - Yi-guo Wang
AU  - Yi-song Sun
AU  - Qi-fei Wang
AU  - Jian-jun Liu
AU  - Da-sheng Tian
AU  - Jue-hua Jing
JO  - Frontiers in Surgery
PY  - 2022
VL  - 9
SP  - 873691
DO  - 10.3389/fsurg.2022.873691
PB  - Frontiers Media SA
SN  - 2296-875X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.873691
ER  -

Cite the original article (the version of record), not this reprint.

Take it with you

One self-contained HTML file: the text, data and figures, readable offline.

Disclaimer and limitations

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Licence and attribution

This page reproduces The Learning Curve of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) Spinal Surgery by CUSUM Analysis by Lei Chen, Bin Zhu, Hua-zhang Zhong, Yi-guo Wang, Yi-song Sun, Qi-fei Wang, Jian-jun Liu, Da-sheng Tian, Jue-hua Jing, first published in Frontiers in Surgery 2022;9:873691, doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.873691, PMID 35574554, PMC9099005. Copyright © 2022 Chen, Zhu, Zhong, Wang, Sun, Wang, Liu, Tian and Jing. It is used under the CC BY 4.0 licence.

Changes made:

The words, data, figures and conclusions are the authors’. Literature Decoded is not the publisher of record and does not claim endorsement by the authors or the journal. The version of record is the journal’s; cite it.

Licence statement in the article: “This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.”

Are you an author of this article? Claim it or ask us to take it down.

Cite this article

Living reprint · journal article