How to cite item

Navigating the learning curve of spinal endoscopy as an established traditionally trained spine surgeon

  
@article{JSS4777,
	author = {Nicholas A. Ransom and Sohrab Gollogly and Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski and Anthony Yeung},
	title = {Navigating the learning curve of spinal endoscopy as an established traditionally trained spine surgeon},
	journal = {Journal of Spine Surgery},
	volume = {6},
	number = {Suppl 1},
	year = {2019},
	keywords = {},
	abstract = {Background: Traditionally trained spine surgeons may want to transition from open spinal surgeries to endoscopic decompressions. The aspiring endoscopic spine surgeon may have to overcome multiple hurdles to master a learning curve without readily available training. Replacing traditional time-proven open spinal surgeries with endoscopic decompression may put the surgeons’ reputation at risk and have an additional negative impact on his or her practice due to reduced revenue. The authors report on the utility of the mentor- and proctorship concepts to facilitate the transition from traditional open to endoscopic outpatient spine surgeries.
Methods: The study population (learning curve groups) was provided by two traditionally trained “apprentice” surgeons who have been in practice for 12 and 28 years, respectively. They trained with the remaining two authors under mentorship and proctorship arrangements. A VAS and Macnab outcomes analysis was performed by one surgeon laminectomy versus endoscopy in relationship to the case log representative of the initial learning curve. The second surgeon performed a postoperative narcotic utilization analysis as a representative way of favorable clinical outcomes in relation to his increasing case log with spinal endoscopy.
Results: The learning curve study by the first author (NA Ransom-under the proctorship program) consisted of 40 patients with 20 patients each divided into the traditional laminectomy control group and 20 patients in the endoscopic group. There were 22 females and 18 males with an average age of 57.38 years and a mean follow-up of 38.58 months. The preoperative VAS for patients in both groups was 7.95 compared to the postoperative VAS at final follow-up of 4.01 with a statistically significant postoperative VAS reduction (P},
	issn = {2414-4630},	url = {https://jss.amegroups.org/article/view/4777}
}