Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32195433›Full record

ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2020

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

Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski, José-Antonio Soriano-Sánchez, Xifeng Zhang, Jorge Felipe Ramírez León, Sergio Soriano Solis, José Gabriel Rugeles Ortíz, Carolina Ramírez Martínez, Gabriel Oswaldo Alonso Cuéllar, Kaixuan Liu, Qiang Fu and 8 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Learning curve insights in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) spinal procedures: proficiency cutoffs and the impact on efficiency and complications.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 · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Kai-Uwe LewandrowskiCenter for Advanced Spine Care of Southern Arizona and Surgical Institute of Tucson, Tucson, AZ 85712, USA.
José-Antonio Soriano-SánchezNeurological Center, ABC Medical Center, Mexico City, Mexico.
Xifeng ZhangOrthopaedic Surgeon, The Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100000, China.
Jorge Felipe Ramírez LeónOrthopedic & Minimally Invasive Spine Surgeon, Reina Sofía Clinic & Center of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Bogotá, Colombia.
Sergio Soriano SolisABC Medical Center, Campus Santa Fe, Mexico City, Mexico.
José Gabriel Rugeles OrtízSpine Surgery Program, Universidad Sanitas, Bogotá, Colombia.
Carolina Ramírez MartínezSpine Surgery Program, Universidad Sanitas, Bogotá, Colombia.
Gabriel Oswaldo Alonso CuéllarCenter of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery, Bogotá, Colombia.
Kaixuan LiuAtlantic Spine Center, West Orange, NJ, USA.
Qiang FuDepartment of Orthopedics, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai 200000, China.
Marlon Sudário de Lima E SilvaDirector of CLINCOL (Endoscopic Spine Clinic), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Paulo Sérgio Teixeira de CarvalhoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Stefan HellingerOrthopaedic Surgeon, 80333 München, Germany.
Álvaro DowlingOrthopaedic Spine Surgeon, Endoscopic Spine Clinic, Santiago, Chile.
Nicholas PradaOrthopaedic Spine Surgeon, Foscal International Clinic, Consultant Elliquence, USA.
Gun ChoiOrthopaedic Surgeon, Gun Hospital, Pohang, Korea.
Girish DatarOrthopaedic Surgeon, Center for Endoscopic Spine Surgery, Sushruta Hospital for Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Miraj, Sangli, Maharashtra, India.
Anthony YeungUniversity of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Desert Institute For Spine Care · USFundación Universitaria Sanitas · COCentro Médico ABC · MXUniversidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro · BRChinese PLA General Hospital · CNNorth Jersey Brain and Spine Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRegional 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.

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. 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.

resultsA 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%).

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Lumbar minimally invasive spinal surgeryregional variations

Identifiers

PMID32195433
PMCPMC7063310
OpenAlexW2996143427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.