The Learning Curve of Minimally-Invasive Lumbar Microdiscectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The safe integration into practice of a new surgical technique requires an appreciation of the learning curve. The object of this study was to assess the learning curve for minimally invasive microdiscectomy (MIM) utilizing a tubular retractor system. METHODS: A prospective evaluation of a single surgeon's first 52 consecutive MIM cases for radiculopathy secondary to single-level posterolateral lumbar disc herniation was performed. The learning curve was assessed using operative time, conversion to open rate, complications, and length of hospitalization. RESULTS: The duration of operative time decreased over the course of the study (range, 49-151 min). By case 15, operative time was typically 60 min or less. There was only one conversion to an open procedure (Case 2). Complications occurred in three cases. All but nine patients were discharged home on the day of surgery. CONCLUSION: The learning curve for MIM was demonstrated. Further assessment of this curve for a large group of surgeons is necessary before a randomized controlled trial comparing standard microdiscectomy to MIM can be conducted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".