Assessing the validity of the endoscopic shunt insertion trial: Did surgical experience affect the results?

Paul Klimo, Clinton J. Thompson, James Drake, John R.W. Kestle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Object. Most surgical procedures are associated with a learning curve in which the success rate is lower early in the experience before mistakes have been identified and modifications made to the procedure. Negative results obtained early in a trial's learning curve may be a matter of timing rather than a reflection of the procedure's effectiveness. The recently published results of the Endoscopic Shunt Insertion Trial (ESIT) represent the notion that endoscopically placed shunts were no more likely to survive than conventionally placed shunts. This negative result may be due to inexperience in performing endoscopic surgeries. Methods. Surgical experience was assessed in two ways. Shunt survival rates were compared between cases treated endoscopically in the 1st and last years of the ESIT. The effect of center volume was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model in which the following variables were analyzed: age at registration, the diagnosis of myelomeningocele, head size, method of shunt placement (endoscopic compared with conventional), and center volume. There was no difference in survival (endurance) of the shunt between patients enrolled in the 1st and last years (log rank = 0.08, p = 0.77). Likewise, no variable in the Cox multivariate model, including center volume, was a significant factor in predicting shunt survival. Conclusions. The primary result of the ESIT was found to be internally valid. The fact that endoscopie shunt placement did not benefit patients evaluated in the study was not due to early timing of the trial. Any learning curve among the participating surgeons did not adversely affect the results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)130-133
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of neurosurgery
Volume101
Issue numberSUPPL. 2
StatePublished - Nov 1 2004

Fingerprint

Learning Curve
Proportional Hazards Models
Meningomyelocele
Survival
Survival Rate
Head

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Assessing the validity of the endoscopic shunt insertion trial : Did surgical experience affect the results? / Klimo, Paul; Thompson, Clinton J.; Drake, James; Kestle, John R.W.

In: Journal of neurosurgery, Vol. 101, No. SUPPL. 2, 01.11.2004, p. 130-133.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Klimo, Paul ; Thompson, Clinton J. ; Drake, James ; Kestle, John R.W. / Assessing the validity of the endoscopic shunt insertion trial : Did surgical experience affect the results?. In: Journal of neurosurgery. 2004 ; Vol. 101, No. SUPPL. 2. pp. 130-133.
@article{72f027715ab945c4a653552dc025758e,
title = "Assessing the validity of the endoscopic shunt insertion trial: Did surgical experience affect the results?",
abstract = "Object. Most surgical procedures are associated with a learning curve in which the success rate is lower early in the experience before mistakes have been identified and modifications made to the procedure. Negative results obtained early in a trial's learning curve may be a matter of timing rather than a reflection of the procedure's effectiveness. The recently published results of the Endoscopic Shunt Insertion Trial (ESIT) represent the notion that endoscopically placed shunts were no more likely to survive than conventionally placed shunts. This negative result may be due to inexperience in performing endoscopic surgeries. Methods. Surgical experience was assessed in two ways. Shunt survival rates were compared between cases treated endoscopically in the 1st and last years of the ESIT. The effect of center volume was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model in which the following variables were analyzed: age at registration, the diagnosis of myelomeningocele, head size, method of shunt placement (endoscopic compared with conventional), and center volume. There was no difference in survival (endurance) of the shunt between patients enrolled in the 1st and last years (log rank = 0.08, p = 0.77). Likewise, no variable in the Cox multivariate model, including center volume, was a significant factor in predicting shunt survival. Conclusions. The primary result of the ESIT was found to be internally valid. The fact that endoscopie shunt placement did not benefit patients evaluated in the study was not due to early timing of the trial. Any learning curve among the participating surgeons did not adversely affect the results.",
author = "Paul Klimo and Thompson, {Clinton J.} and James Drake and Kestle, {John R.W.}",
year = "2004",
month = "11",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "101",
pages = "130--133",
journal = "Journal of Neurosurgery",
issn = "0022-3085",
publisher = "American Association of Neurological Surgeons",
number = "SUPPL. 2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the validity of the endoscopic shunt insertion trial

T2 - Did surgical experience affect the results?

AU - Klimo, Paul

AU - Thompson, Clinton J.

AU - Drake, James

AU - Kestle, John R.W.

PY - 2004/11/1

Y1 - 2004/11/1

N2 - Object. Most surgical procedures are associated with a learning curve in which the success rate is lower early in the experience before mistakes have been identified and modifications made to the procedure. Negative results obtained early in a trial's learning curve may be a matter of timing rather than a reflection of the procedure's effectiveness. The recently published results of the Endoscopic Shunt Insertion Trial (ESIT) represent the notion that endoscopically placed shunts were no more likely to survive than conventionally placed shunts. This negative result may be due to inexperience in performing endoscopic surgeries. Methods. Surgical experience was assessed in two ways. Shunt survival rates were compared between cases treated endoscopically in the 1st and last years of the ESIT. The effect of center volume was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model in which the following variables were analyzed: age at registration, the diagnosis of myelomeningocele, head size, method of shunt placement (endoscopic compared with conventional), and center volume. There was no difference in survival (endurance) of the shunt between patients enrolled in the 1st and last years (log rank = 0.08, p = 0.77). Likewise, no variable in the Cox multivariate model, including center volume, was a significant factor in predicting shunt survival. Conclusions. The primary result of the ESIT was found to be internally valid. The fact that endoscopie shunt placement did not benefit patients evaluated in the study was not due to early timing of the trial. Any learning curve among the participating surgeons did not adversely affect the results.

AB - Object. Most surgical procedures are associated with a learning curve in which the success rate is lower early in the experience before mistakes have been identified and modifications made to the procedure. Negative results obtained early in a trial's learning curve may be a matter of timing rather than a reflection of the procedure's effectiveness. The recently published results of the Endoscopic Shunt Insertion Trial (ESIT) represent the notion that endoscopically placed shunts were no more likely to survive than conventionally placed shunts. This negative result may be due to inexperience in performing endoscopic surgeries. Methods. Surgical experience was assessed in two ways. Shunt survival rates were compared between cases treated endoscopically in the 1st and last years of the ESIT. The effect of center volume was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model in which the following variables were analyzed: age at registration, the diagnosis of myelomeningocele, head size, method of shunt placement (endoscopic compared with conventional), and center volume. There was no difference in survival (endurance) of the shunt between patients enrolled in the 1st and last years (log rank = 0.08, p = 0.77). Likewise, no variable in the Cox multivariate model, including center volume, was a significant factor in predicting shunt survival. Conclusions. The primary result of the ESIT was found to be internally valid. The fact that endoscopie shunt placement did not benefit patients evaluated in the study was not due to early timing of the trial. Any learning curve among the participating surgeons did not adversely affect the results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=7044231116&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=7044231116&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 15835098

AN - SCOPUS:7044231116

VL - 101

SP - 130

EP - 133

JO - Journal of Neurosurgery

JF - Journal of Neurosurgery

SN - 0022-3085

IS - SUPPL. 2

ER -