Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39500596›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2024

Insights From the ISASS Webinar Series on Current and Emerging Techniques in Endoscopic Spine Surgery | Part 1: Polytomous Rasch Analysis of Surgeon Endorsement of Endoscopic Discectomy/Foraminotomy, Interbody Fusion, and Importance of Patient Feedback During Surgery.

Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski, Paulo Sergio Terxeira de Carvalho, Alvaro Dowling, Zhen-Zhou Li, Martin Knight, Morgan P Lorio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Kai-Uwe LewandrowskiDivision Personalized Pain Research and Education, Center for Advanced Spine Care of Southern Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA business@tucsonspine.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7842-2914
Paulo Sergio Terxeira de CarvalhoDepartment of Neurosurgery, at Hospital Universitário Gaffree Guinle Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Alvaro DowlingDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, USP, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9963-4131
Zhen-Zhou LiDepartment of Orthopedics, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Martin KnightThe Weymouth Hospital, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0823-2995
Morgan P LorioAdvanced Orthopaedics, Spine Center, Altamonte, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1623-2095

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery hosted the first of a series of 4 webinars on endoscopic spine surgery techniques, focusing on end§oscopic discectomy, foraminotomy, instrumented endoscopic fusion, standalone lumbar interbody fusion with innovative materials, and the role of patient feedback in awake procedures. This series aims to share knowledge and discuss the complexities and clinical evidence of modern endoscopic spine surgery.

objectiveTo analyze the level of surgeon endorsement for the presented endoscopic spine surgery techniques before and after the webinar, utilizing polytomous Rasch analysis, and to evaluate the potential for these insights to inform clinical guideline recommendations.

methodsA survey was available to 1311 potential respondents during the Zoom webinar, collecting data on surgeon endorsements using a Likert scale. The polytomous Rasch model was employed to analyze responses, considering the complexity of decisions against surgeon expertise, developing a logarithmic measurement scale, allowing objective statistical analysis of categorical variables, highlighting incongruent or out-of-order items vs congruent and in-order items, and driving improvement in clinical guidelines.

resultsAll 4 topics received higher confidence ratings demonstrated by descriptive statistics, highlighting the webinar's effective role in surgeon education and in identifying ongoing trends in spine surgery. The logarithmic transformation of these data during Rasch analysis showed noticeable shifts in surgeon confidence levels postwebinar, with increased endorsement for transforaminal full-endoscopic thoracolumbar interbody fusion for hard disc herniation and standalone endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion. The Wright plot and person-item map analyses demonstrated that the webinar effectively targeted areas of initial low confidence, significantly impacting surgeons' perceptions. Disordered endorsement thresholds remained in the topics of uniportal transforaminal discectomy/foraminotomy and patient feedback during endoscopic spine surgery, indicating issues in response category discrimination or confounding factors not captured by the survey. Ongoing controversies were highlighted by the influence of confounding factors, stemming from preconceived notions and limited familiarity with high-grade evidence.

conclusionThe first in the 4-part webinar series effectively shifted professional confidence and acceptance of innovative surgical approaches among spine surgeons. Observations indicated a high level of interest in applying the endoscopic surgery platform with other advanced technologies. The polytomous Rasch analysis provided nuanced insights into ongoing trends and areas in need of further clarification. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Assessing surgeon confidence and acceptance of endoscopic spinal surgeries using polytomous Rasch analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2 (inferential) and 3 (observational) evidence because Rasch analysis provides statistical validation of instruments rather than direct clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

clinical guidelinesEndoscopic spine surgeryforaminotomyinterbody fusionISASSpatient feedbackpolytomous Rasch analysissurgeon endorsementtransforaminal discectomy

Identifiers

PMID39500596
PMCPMC11616374

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.