Literature DB >> 32195433

Regional variations in acceptance, and utilization of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques among spine surgeons: results of a global survey.

Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski1,2, José-Antonio Soriano-Sánchez3, Xifeng Zhang4, Jorge Felipe Ramírez León5,6,7, Sergio Soriano Solis8, José Gabriel Rugeles Ortíz6,7, Carolina Ramírez Martínez6,7, Gabriel Oswaldo Alonso Cuéllar9, Kaixuan Liu10, Qiang Fu11, Marlon Sudário de Lima E Silva12,13, Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho14, Stefan Hellinger15, Álvaro Dowling16,17, Nicholas Prada18, Gun Choi19, Girish Datar20, Anthony Yeung21,22.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Regional differences in acceptance and utilization of MISST by spine surgeons may have an impact on clinical decision-making and the surgical treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. The purpose of this study was to analyze the acceptance and utilization of various minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) by spinal surgeons the world over.
METHODS: The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Surgeons were asked the following questions: (I) Do you think minimally invasive spinal surgery is considered mainstream in your area and practice setting? (II) Do you perform minimally invasive spinal surgery? (III) What type of MIS spinal surgery do you perform? (IV) If you are performing endoscopic spinal decompression surgeries, which approach do you prefer? The responses were cross-tabulated by surgeons' demographic data, and their practice area using the following five global regions: Africa & Middle East, Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Pearson Chi-Square measures, Kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances using statistical package SPSS Version 25.0.
RESULTS: A total of 586 surgeons accessed the survey. Analyzing the responses of 292 submitted surveys regional differences in opinion amongst spine surgeons showed that the highest percentage of surgeons in Asia (72.8%) and South America (70.2%) thought that MISST was accepted into mainstream spinal surgery in their practice area (P=0.04) versus North America (62.8%), Europe (52.8%), and Africa & Middle East region (50%). The percentage of spine surgeons employing MISST was much higher per region than the rate of surgeons who thought it was mainstream: Asia (96.7%), Europe (88.9%), South America (88.9%), and Africa & Middle East (87.5%). Surgeons in North America reported the lowest rate of MISST implementation globally (P<0.000). Spinal endoscopy (59.9%) is currently the most commonly employed MISST globally followed by mini-open approaches (55.1%), and tubular retractor systems (41.8%). The most preferred endoscopic approach to the spine is the transforaminal technique (56.2%) followed by interlaminar (41.8%), full endoscopic (35.3%), and over the top MISST (13.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of implementation of MISST into day-to-day clinical practice reported by spine surgeons was universally higher than the perceived acceptance rates of MISST into the mainstream by their peers in their practice area. The survey suggests that endoscopic spinal surgery is now the most commonly performed MISST. 2020 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lumbar minimally invasive spinal surgery; regional variations

Year:  2020        PMID: 32195433      PMCID: PMC7063310          DOI: 10.21037/jss.2019.09.31

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2414-4630


  61 in total

Review 1.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications.

Authors:  Langston T Holly; James D Schwender; David P Rouben; Kevin T Foley
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 4.047

Review 2.  In-vivo endoscopic visualization of patho-anatomy in painful degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Anthony T Yeung; Christopher A Yeung
Journal:  Surg Technol Int       Date:  2006

3.  Patient Expectations and Preferences in the Spinal Surgery Clinic.

Authors:  Borna E Tabibian; Elizabeth N Kuhn; Matthew C Davis; Patrick R Pritchard
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 2.104

4.  The quantitative analysis of tissue injury markers after mini-open lumbar fusion.

Authors:  Ki-Tack Kim; Sang-Hun Lee; Kyung-Soo Suk; Sung-Chul Bae
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Single-level instrumented mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients.

Authors:  Dong Yeob Lee; Tag-Geun Jung; Sang-Ho Lee
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2008-08

6.  Fulfillment of patients' expectations of lumbar and cervical spine surgery.

Authors:  Carol A Mancuso; Roland Duculan; Frank P Cammisa; Andrew A Sama; Alexander P Hughes; Darren R Lebl; Federico P Girardi
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 4.166

7.  Facing the challenge of pain management and opioid misuse, abuse and opioid-related fatalities.

Authors:  Martin D Cheatle
Journal:  Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-03-25       Impact factor: 5.045

8.  Microlumbar discectomy. Is it safe as an outpatient procedure?

Authors:  F Zahrawi
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1994-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  The Difference in Surgical Site Infection Rates Between Open and Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Pathology: A Retrospective Single Center Experience of 1442 Cases.

Authors:  Kyle Mueller; David Zhao; Osiris Johnson; Faheem A Sandhu; Jean-Marc Voyadzis
Journal:  Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 2.703

10.  Microendoscopic Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: The Influence of Spondylolisthesis Stage (Disc Height and Static and Dynamic Translation) on Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  Akihito Minamide; Andrew K Simpson; Motohiro Okada; Yoshio Enyo; Yukihiro Nakagawa; Hiroshi Iwasaki; Shunji Tsutsui; Masanari Takami; Keiji Nagata; Hiroshi Hashizume; Yasutsugu Yukawa; Hiroshi Yamada; Munehito Yoshida
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.876

View more
  2 in total

1.  Durability of Endoscopes Used During Routine Lumbar Endoscopy: An Analysis of Use Patterns, Common Failure Modes, Impact on Patient Care, and Contingency Plans.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Friedrich Tieber; Stefan Hellinger; Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de Carvalho; Max Rogério Freitas Ramos; Zhang Xifeng; André Luiz Calderaro; Thiago Soares Dos Santos; Jorge Felipe Ramírez León; Marlon Sudário de Lima E Silva; Girish Datar; Jin-Sung Kim; Hyeun Sung Kim; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-12

2.  Difficulties, Challenges, and the Learning Curve of Avoiding Complications in Lumbar Endoscopic Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Albert E Telfeian; Stefan Hellinger; Max R F Ramos; Hyeun Sung Kim; Daniel W Hanson; Nimar Salari; Anthony Yeung
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-12
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.