Figure 1 - uploaded by Ertuğrul Şahin
Content may be subject to copyright.
Components of the UBE model. Spine sawbone, cardboard box, laptop, ear endoscope camera compatible with mobile phones, mobile phone holder, mobile phone, Kerrison punch, Dremel ® stylo, spinal needle, No. 11 blade, and ear endoscope camera compatible with laptops.
Source publication
Aim:
To design a practical, low-cost, and freely mobile training model for biportal endoscopic spine surgery to improve the surgeons? abilities in basic endoscopic skills, including triangulation, two-dimensional visualization, and one-handed control of the instruments.
Material and methods:
The training model involved three stages: triangulatio...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... BESS model involved three stages: triangulation, drilling, and punching. The training model was composed of sawbones covered by solid and impenetrable materials (a cardboard box was used), monitor (laptop or mobile phone), and hand tools, including ear endoscope cameras compatible with a mobile phone or laptop, Dremel® stylo + rotary tool at 22000 rpm, Dremel® 2.0-mm diamond wheel point burr, Kerrison punch, No.11 blade, 18 G spinal needle, and mobile phone holder ( Figure 1). ...
Citations
... Virtual reality simulators can provide detailed visual feedback but are expensive and may lack tactile feedback. Low-cost training models have been described as effective alternatives for teaching endoscopic techniques [76]. ...
The purpose of this paper is to review the data supporting current endoscopic surgical techniques for the spine and the potential challenges and future of the field. The origins of endoscopic spine surgery can be traced back many decades, with many important innovations throughout its development. It can be applied to all levels of the spine, with many robust trials supporting its clinical outcomes. Continued clinical research is needed to explore its expanding indications. Although the limitations of starting an endoscopic program can be justified by its cost effectiveness and positive societal impact, challenges facing its widespread adoption are still present. As more residency and fellowship programs include endoscopy as part of their spine training, it will become more prevalent in hospitals in the United States. Technological advancements in spine surgery will further propel and enhance endoscopic techniques as they become an integral part of a spine surgeon’s repertoire.
... In general, there is a learning curve for this technique, so the summary of early evidence in our meta-analysis will be valuable for surgeons who are new or about to perform this technique. Notably, Sahin et al. proposed a cost-effective mobile training model to enhance biportal endoscopic skills for inexperienced practitioners [56]. This may be beneficial for shortening the learning process. ...
Purpose
This study aimed to compare unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBED) with microdiscectomy (MD) for treating lumbar disk herniation (LDH).
Methods
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Web of Science databases from database inception to April 2023 to identify studies comparing UBED and MD for treating LDH. This study evaluated the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Macnab scores, operation time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and complications, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Macnab scores at various pre- and post-surgery stages. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.
Results
The meta-analysis included 9 distinct studies with a total of 1001 patients. The VAS scores for low back pain showed no significant differences between the groups at postoperative 1–3 months (P = 0.09) and final follow-up (P = 0.13); however, the UBED group had lower VAS scores at postoperative 1–3 days (P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in leg pain VAS scores at baseline (P = 0.05), postoperative 1–3 days (P = 0.24), postoperative 1–3 months (P = 0.78), or at the final follow-up (P = 0.43). ODI comparisons revealed no significant differences preoperatively (P = 0.83), at postoperative 1 week (P = 0.47), or postoperative 1–3 months (P = 0.13), and the UBED group demonstrated better ODI at the final follow-up (P = 0.03). The UBED group also exhibited a shorter mean operative time (P = 0.03), significantly shorter hospital stay (P < 0.00001), and less estimated blood loss (P = 0.0002). Complications and modified MacNab scores showed no significant differences between the groups (P = 0.56 and P = 0.05, respectively).
Conclusion
The evidence revealed no significant differences in efficacy between UBED and MD for LDH treatment. However, UBED may offer potential benefits such as shorter hospital stays, lower estimated blood loss, and comparable complication rates.
