ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2020
Surgeon motivation, and obstacles to the implementation of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques.
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving the learning curve in monoportal endoscopic lumbar surgery: Development and validation of a porcine training model.PloS one · 2026Article
- Synergizing Digital and Print: Leveraging Spine Surgeons' Social Media to Transform Publishing and Society Interaction.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Advances and Challenges in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Surgeon Perceptions of Performing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in an Ambulatory Surgical Center vs Hospital Setting in the Elderly Population: Results of a Surgeon Survey.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Revitalizing neurosurgical frontiers: The EANS frontiers in neurosurgery committee's strategic framework.Brain & spine · 2024Article
- Visible trephine-based foraminoplasty in PTED leads to asymmetrical stress changes and instability in the surgical and adjacent segments: a finite element analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Determination of Work Related to Endoscopic Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical Consequences of Incidental Durotomy during Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery in Relation to Intraoperative Epidural Pressure Measurements.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Identification of the Magna Radicular Artery Entry Foramen and Adamkiewicz System: Patient Selection for Open versus Full-Endoscopic Thoracic Spinal Decompression Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Durability of Endoscopes Used During Routine Lumbar Endoscopy: An Analysis of Use Patterns, Common Failure Modes, Impact on Patient Care, and Contingency Plans.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Dural Tears During Lumbar Spinal Endoscopy: Surgeon Skill, Training, Incidence, Risk Factors, and Management.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Lumbar Endoscopic Bony and Soft Tissue Decompression With the Hybridized Inside-Out Approach: A Review And Technical Note.Neurospine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to analyze the motivators and obstacles to the implementation of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) by spinal surgeons. Motivators and detractors may impact the availability of MISST to patients and drive spine surgeons' clinical decision-making in the treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine.
methodsThe 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. Descriptive statistics were employed to count the responses and compared to the surgeon's training. Kappa statistics and linear regression analysis of agreement were performed.
resultsA total of 430 surgeons accessed the survey. The completion rate was 67.4%. A total of 292 surveys were submitted by 99 neurosurgeons (33.9%), 170 orthopaedic surgeons (58.2%), and 23 surgeons of other postgraduate training (7.9%). Personal interest (82.5%) and patient demand (48.6%) were the primary motivators for MISST implementation. High equipment (48.3%) and disposables (29.1%) cost were relevant obstacles to MISST implementation. Local workshops (47.6%) and meetings in small groups (31.8%) were listed as the primary knowledge sources. Only 12% of surgeons were fellowship trained, but 46.3% of surgeons employed MISST in over 25% of their cases.
conclusionsThe rate of implementation of MISST reported by spine surgeons was found to be high but impeded by the high cost of equipment and disposables. The primary motivators for spine surgeons' desire to implement were personal interest and patient demand.
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.