Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37020150›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

Surgeon reported practice patterns related to full endoscopic cervical decompression procedures.

Vincent Hagel, Ralf Wagner, Albrecht Waschke, Christoph P Hofstetter, Albert E Telfeian, Jian Shen, Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Vincent HagelUniversity Spine Center Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland. vhagel@yahoo.de.ORCID 0000-0001-9081-1234
Ralf WagnerLigamenta Spine Center, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany.
Albrecht WaschkeRhön-Klinikum, Campus Bad Neustadt, Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale, Germany.
Christoph P HofstetterDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Albert E TelfeianDepartment of Neurosurgery, Rhode Island Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Jian ShenenVISION Spine Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Kai-Uwe LewandrowskiCenter for Advanced Spine Care of Southern Arizona, Surgical Institute of Tucson, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Brown University · USCardiovascular Center Frankfurt · DEHospital Universitário Gaffrée e Guinle · BRRhön-Klinikum · DEUniversitätsklinik Balgrist · CHUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe microsurgical anterior approach to the cervical spine is commonplace. Fewer surgeons perform posterior cervical microsurgical procedures on a routine basis for lack of indication, more bleeding, persistent postoperative neck pain, and risk of progressive misalignment. In comparison, the endoscopic technique is preferentially performed through the posterior approach. Many spine surgeons and even surgeons versed in lumbar endoscopy are often reluctant to consider endoscopic procedures in the cervical spine. We report the results of a surgeon survey to find out why.

methodsA questionnaire of 10 questions was sent to spine surgeons by email and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and LinkedIn to collect practice pattern data about microscopic and endoscopic spine surgery in the lumbar and cervical spine. The responses were cross-tabulated by surgeons' demographic data. Pearson Chi-Square measures, Kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances using the statistical package SPSS Version 27.0.

resultsThe survey response rate was 39.7%, with 50 of the 126 surgeons who started the survey submitting a completed questionnaire. Of the 50 surgeons, 56.2% were orthopedic, and 42% neurological surgeons. Most surgeons worked in private practice (42%). Another 26% were university-employed, 18% were in private practice affiliated with a university, and the remaining 14% were hospital employed. The majority of surgeons (55.1%) were autodidacts. The largest responding surgeon groups were between 35-44 years (38%) and between 45-54 years of age (34%). Half of the responding surgeons were routinely performing endoscopic cervical spine surgery. The other half did not perform it for the main hurdle of fear of complications (50%). Lack of appropriate mentorship was listed as second most reason (25.4%). More concerns for not performing cervical endoscopic approaches were the perception of lack of technology (20.8%) and suitable surgical indication (12.5%). Only 4.2% considered cervical endoscopy too risky. Nearly a third (30.6%) of the spine surgeons treated over 80% of their cervical spine patients with endoscopic surgeries. Most commonly performed were posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD; 52%), posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PECF; 48%), anterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (AECD; 32%), cervical endoscopic unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (CE-ULBD; 30%), respectively.

conclusionCervical endoscopic spine surgery is gaining traction among spine surgeons. However, by far most surgeons performing cervical endoscopic spine surgery work in private practice and are autodidacts. This lack of a teacher to shorten the learning curve as well as fear of complications are two of the major impediments to the successful implementation of cervical endoscopic procedures.

Indexed as

Intervertebral Disc DisplacementSurgeonsCervical VertebraeDecompressionEndoscopyHumansPostoperative PainCervical central stenosisCervical disc herniationCervical endoscopic spine surgeryCervical foraminal stenosis

Identifiers

PMID37020150
OpenAlexW4362638889

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.