ArticleCureus2021
Development and Validation of a Low-Cost Endoscopic Spine Surgery Simulator.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Simulation training in spinal endoscopic surgery: a systematic review of current status.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Validation of a synthetic lumbar spinal endoscopy simulator: skills transfer to real surgery.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2026Trial
- Reducing the learning curve of interlaminar full-endoscopic discectomy: mushroom model-simulation training.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Minimally invasive endoscopic techniques in spine surgery continue to gain in popularity. Unfortunately, there is a long learning period for novice endoscope users to acquire basic skills, and complex training simulators are frequently cost-prohibitive. This paper describes the development and validation of a low-cost endoscopic spine training simulator. Methodology A low-cost endoscopic spine training model was created utilizing a budget of less than 65 USD. Afterward, a training curriculum consisting of five tasks was designed to mimic standard techniques frequently utilized in endoscopic spine surgery. This curriculum was tested on a cohort of surgical trainees. The initial time to completion as well as errors made during the tasks and repeat trials were recorded. A composite score was generated to quantify the overall scores which included both time and errors in each task. Results In total, 11 students and surgical residents completed the curriculum. The first attempt required an average of 622 seconds for the completion of the curriculum compared to 283 seconds in the second trial (p < 0.001; SD = 36.75). In regards to trials in which errors were counted, fewer errors occurred during the second attempt (2.55 vs. 1.53); however, this difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). In regards to the composite score, the composite score of the intern group demonstrated an average improvement of 0.345 compared to an average improvement of 0.47 in the resident group. Conclusions Our study demonstrates the feasibility of a low-cost endoscopic spine trainer as well as its efficacy in improving basic endoscopic skills in trainees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.