ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Validation of a modular low-fidelity training model for biportal endoscopic spine surgery.
Article in 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, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSpinal endoscopy is associated with a steep learning curve, in part owing to its limited depth perception, which increases the need for training models. This study aimed to investigate construct and predictive validity of the Endobox as a low-fidelity training model for biportal endoscopy.
methodsTo assess construct validity, we compared the performances of expertsand novices across four Endobox exercises. Performances were evaluated based on completion time and number of attempts, using a 0º endoscope and rongeur. To assess predictive validity of the Endobox, 16 students (n = 8 per group) were randomly assigned into EB+ (twelve training sessions) or EB- (no training) before performing six simulated discectomies on a non-anatomical simulation model. Completion time, technical skill (modified version of the ASSET score), and cognitive demand (NASA-TLX score) were compared. Statistical analysis was carried out using parametric and non-parametric tests using Stata 18 for Mac.
resultsConstruct validity: experts were significantly faster in 3/4 exercises (2. p = 0.02, 3. p = 0.01, 4. p = 0.03), except in exercise 1 (p = 0.43). Experts needed fewer attempts for exercises 3 (p = 0.04) and 4 (p = 0.02), rated most difficult (9/10, 8/10 respectively). Predictive validity: the EB+ group was faster (p < 0.001) and improved across all observations, achieving higher scores for safety (p = 0.007), camera/bimanual dexterity, instrument handling, depth perception, and procedure quality (all p < 0.001). No difference in cognitive load was observed (p = 0.621).
conclusionThe present study provides preliminary evidence that the Endobox model may develop skills that are relevant to, and potentially transferable to, a simulated procedure representing endoscopic spine surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42680985What 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.