Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39547676›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2024

Key Takeaways From ISASS Webinar Series on Endoscopic Spine Surgery Techniques | Part 4: Advancing the Curve on Surgeons' Experience With Complex Lumbar Revision Scenarios, Grades 1 to 3 Spondylolytic Spondylolisthesis, Cervical Foraminotomy, and Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski, Christian Morgenstern, Martin Knight, Yi Jiang, Zhang Xifeng, Paulo Sergio Terxeira de Carvalho, 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

7 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
Christian MorgensternDepartment of Orthopaedics, Teknon Medical Center, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4533-4867
Martin KnightThe Weymouth Hospital, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0823-2995
Yi JiangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Beijing Haidian Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zhang XifengDepartment of Orthopedics, First Medical Center, PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Paulo Sergio Terxeira de CarvalhoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Morgan P LorioAdvanced Orthopedics, Altamonte Springs, Orlando College of Osteopathic Medicine, Orlando, 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 fourth webinar in a 4-part series hosted by the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery explored contemporary endoscopic spine surgery techniques. This session covered complex revision strategies, endoscopic management of grades 1-3 spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, cervical foraminotomy, and decompression techniques for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

objectiveThe aim was to assess surgeon endorsement of the discussed endoscopic spine surgery techniques both before and after the webinar using polytomous Rasch analysis. Additionally, the analysis sought to determine how these insights might shape clinical guideline recommendations.

methodsBefore the webinar, which was attended by 868 potential participants, a survey was distributed to collect data on the level of support for various techniques using a Likert scale. The polytomous Rasch model analyzed these responses by evaluating decision complexity relative to surgeon expertise. This approach helped develop a logarithmic scale to objectively analyze categorical responses, distinguish between congruent and incongruent items, and contribute to the enhancement of clinical guidelines.

resultsOf the 868 surgeons, 263 accessed, 150 started, and 118 completed the prewebinar survey, with a completion rate of 78.7%. The participants were mainly orthopedic surgeons (59.3%) and neurosurgeons (34.7%) but also included residents (2.5%), fellows (1.7%), and interventional radiologists (1.7%). In the postwebinar phase, 298 participants accessed the survey, 169 started it, and 128 completed it, achieving a 75.7% completion rate. The demographics of postwebinar participants closely mirrored the initial group: 66.4% orthopedic surgeons, 23.4% neurosurgeons, 3.6% residents, 2.9% fellows, 0.7% medical students, and 2.9% interventional radiologists. The Rasch analysis confirmed high surgeon confidence for the posterior cervical foraminotomy and endoscopic treatment of spondylolytic spondylolisthesis grades 1 to 3 and posterior endoscopic decompression for CSM. Both pre- and postwebinar responses showed a good fit to the Rasch model for these endoscopic techniques, indicating minimal bias, supported by differential item functioning analysis. The application of the endoscopic surgery platform for procedures such as lumbar revision surgery for adjacent segment disease or failed interbody fusion cages and posterior decompression of CSM saw little shift in endorsement, as evidenced both in descriptive and the logarithmically transformed Rasch statistics.

conclusionThis webinar highlighted the evolving consensus on best practices in endoscopic spine surgery, displaying wide acceptance of endoscopic debridement of spondylolytic spondylolisthesis, cervical foraminotomy for herniated disc and bony stenosis, and posterior endoscopic decompression for CSM. 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

cervical foraminal stenosiscervical herniated discCervical spondylotic myelopathyendoscopic spine surgerylumbar revision surgerypolytomous Rasch analysisspondylolytic spondylolisthesissurgeon endorsement

Identifiers

PMID39547676
PMCPMC11616405

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.