No abstract

BackgroundTraining beginners of the pedicle screw instrumentation technique in the operating room is limited because of issues related to patient safety and surgical efficiency. Three-dimensional (3D) printing enables training or simulation surgery on a real-size replica of deformed spine, which is difficult to perform in the usual cadaver or surrogate plastic models. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the educational effect of using a real-size 3D-printed spine model for training beginners of the free-hand pedicle screw instrumentation technique. We asked whether the use of a 3D spine model can improve (1) screw instrumentation accuracy and (2) length of procedure.MethodsTwenty life-size 3D-printed lumbar spine models were made from 10 volunteers (two models for each volunteer). Two novice surgeons who had no experience of free-hand pedicle screw instrumentation technique were instructed by an experienced surgeon, and each surgeon inserted 10 pedicle screws for each lumbar spine model. Computed tomography scans of the spine models were obtained to evaluate screw instrumentation accuracy. The length of time in completing the procedure was recorded. The results of the latter 10 spine models were compared with those of the former 10 models to evaluate learning effect.ResultsA total of 37/200 screws (18.5%) perforated the pedicle cortex with a mean of 1.7 mm (range, 1.2–3.3 mm). However, the latter half of the models had significantly less violation than the former half (10/100 vs. 27/100, p < 0.001). The mean length of time to complete 10 pedicle screw instrumentations in a spine model was 42.8 ± 5.3 min for the former 10 spine models and 35.6 ± 2.9 min for the latter 10 spine models. The latter 10 spine models had significantly less time than the former 10 models (p < 0.001).ConclusionA life-size 3D-printed spine model can be an excellent tool for training beginners of the free-hand pedicle screw instrumentation.

No abstract

Background Although literature provides evidence regarding the superiority of surgery over conservative treatment in patients with lumbar disc herniation, recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) was the indication for reoperation in 62% of the cases. The major problem with revisional lumbar discectomy (RLD) is that the epidural scar tissue is not clearly isolated from the boundaries of the dura matter and nerve roots; therefore, unintended durotomy and nerve root injury may occur. The biportal endoscopic (BE) technique is a newly emerging minimally invasive spine surgical modality. However, clinical evidence regarding BE-RLD remains limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes after performing open microscopic (OM)-RLD and BE-RLD to evaluate the feasibility of BE-RLD. Methods This retrospective study included 36 patients who were diagnosed with RLDH and underwent OM-RLD and BE-RLD. RLDH is defined as the presence of herniated disc material at the level previously operated upon in patients who have experienced a pain-free phase for more than 6 months. BE-RLD was performed as follows: two independent surgical ports were made inside the medial pedicular line of the target segment and on the intact upper and lower laminas. Peeling off the soft tissue from the vertebral lamina helps to easily identify the traversing nerve root and the recurrent disc material without dealing with the fibrotic scar tissue. Clinical outcomes were obtained using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the modified Macnab criteria before and at 2 days, 2 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results The data of 20 and 16 patients who underwent OM-RLD and BE-RLD, respectively, were evaluated. The demographic and perioperative data were comparable between the groups. During the year following the surgery, in the BE-RLD group, the VAS scores at each point were significantly improved over the baseline and remained improved up to 2 weeks after surgery (p < 0.05); however, no statistical difference between the two groups was observed after 6 weeks of surgery (p > 0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria on the follow-up, the excellent or good satisfaction rates reported at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery were 81.25%, 81.25%, 75%, and 81.25%, respectively, in the BE-RLD group, and 50%, 75%, 75%, and 80%, respectively, in the OM-RLD group. Conclusion BE-RLD yielded similar outcomes to OM-RLD, including pain improvement, functional improvement, and patient satisfaction, at 1 year after surgery. However, faster pain relief, earlier functional recovery, and better patient satisfaction were observed when applying BE-LRD. Trial registration Retrospectively registered