Objective: To conduct a bibliometric review of literature on posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) injury in thoracolumbar trauma to guide future research. Methods: A keyword-based search was conducted from January 2000 to September 2021 using the Scopus database. Relevant publications were analyzed for year of publication, authorship, publishing journal, institution and country of origin, subject matter, and article type. Content analysis of clinical articles was also performed, analyzed for sample size, retrospective versus prospective study design, single-center versus multicenter study, and level of evidence. Results: The search yielded 262 publications published in 61 journals by 537 authors from 162 institutions and 29 countries. Thomas Jefferson University, University of Calgary, and University of Toronto had the largest number of publications related to posterior ligamentous complex injury. Authors from the United States, Canada, and China were the most frequent contributors in terms of the number of publications. Spine was the most prolific and top-cited journal, and A.R. Vaccaro was the most prolific author. The most cited publication was “A New Classification of Thoracolumbar Injuries: The Importance of Injury Morphology, the Integrity of the Posterior Ligamentous Complex, and Neurologic Status” by Vaccaro et al. Most of the publications were case studies, with diagnostic accuracy being the most frequently discussed topic. The sample size for a large portion of the case series was <50. Most case series were retrospective studies conducted at a single center. Conclusions: Our review provides an extensive list of the most historically significant thoracolumbar PLC injury articles, acknowledging key contributions made to the advancement of this research area. © 2022 Elsevier Inc.

Study design: Complete audit cycle. Introduction: To highlight the unjustified overuse of perioperative antibiotics in clean non-instrumented lumbar spinal surgeries. To convince orthopedic surgeons in a methodological way of local field comparison between common practice on the use of perioperative antibiotics prophylaxis (PAP) in clean non-instrumented lumbar spinal surgeries and the ideal practice according to "The guidelines published by North American Spine Society (NASS)". Methods: A complete audit cycle had been done. One hundred and eight patients underwent clean non-instrumented lumbar spinal surgeries in a tertiary spine center, during the period from the 1st of April to the 31st of June 2017 (primary audit period) and during the period from the 8th of May to the 21st of November 2018 (re-audit period). Group I: audit group (n = 54) was given the usual regimen (IV first-generation cephalosporin for 1-6 days, followed by oral antibiotics, till the removal of stitches) and Group II: re-audit group (n = 54) received only the IV antibiotics for one day). The study protocol was approved by our institution's Ethical Committee (17100582). Results: This study showed a wide gap between international standards and local prescribing practices and calls for multiple interventions to improve our practice. Out of the 108 patients, only one case (1.85%) developed surgical site infection (SSI) in the audit group (Group I). The difference in infection rates between the two groups was statistically insignificant. Conclusion: A single-day postoperative dose of antibiotics effectively prevents postoperative wound infection following non-instrumented lumbar spinal surgery and is not associated with a higher infection rate. © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2021.

Study Design: Cross-sectional, anonymous, international survey. Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the rapid adoption of telemedicine in spine surgery. This study sought to determine the extent of adoption and global perspectives on telemedicine in spine surgery. Methods: All members of AO Spine International were emailed an anonymous survey covering the participant’s experiences with and perceptions of telemedicine. Descriptive statistics were used to depict responses. Responses were compared among regions. Results: 485 spine surgeons participated in the survey. Telemedicine usage rose from [removed]39.0% of all visits. A majority of providers (60.5%) performed at least one telemedicine visit. The format of “telemedicine” varied widely by region: European (50.0%) and African (45.2%) surgeons were more likely to use phone calls, whereas North (66.7%) and South American (77.0%) surgeons more commonly used video (P < 0.001). North American providers used telemedicine the most during COVID-19 (>60.0% of all visits). 81.9% of all providers “agreed/strongly agreed” telemedicine was easy to use. Respondents tended to “agree” that imaging review, the initial appointment, and postoperative care could be performed using telemedicine. Almost all (95.4%) surgeons preferred at least one in-person visit prior to the day of surgery. Conclusion: Our study noted significant geographical differences in the rate of telemedicine adoption and the platform of telemedicine utilized. The results suggest a significant increase in telemedicine utilization, particularly in North America. Spine surgeons found telemedicine feasible for imaging review, initial visits, and follow-up visits although the vast majority still preferred at least one in-person preoperative visit. © The Author(s) 2021.

Purpose: To utilize data from a global spine surgeon survey to elucidate (1) overall confidence in the telemedicine evaluation and (2) determinants of provider confidence. Methods: Members of AO Spine International were sent a survey encompassing participant’s experience with, perception of, and comparison of telemedicine to in-person visits. The survey was designed through a Delphi approach, with four rounds of question review by the multi-disciplinary authors. Data were stratified by provider age, experience, telemedicine platform, trust in telemedicine, and specialty. Results: Four hundred and eighty-five surgeons participated in the survey. The global effort included respondents from Africa (19.9%), Asia Pacific (19.7%), Europe (24.3%), North America (9.4%), and South America (26.6%). Providers felt that physical exam-based tasks (e.g., provocative testing, assessing neurologic deficits/myelopathy, etc.) were inferior to in-person exams, while communication-based aspects (e.g., history taking, imaging review, etc.) were equivalent. Participants who performed greater than 50 visits were more likely to believe telemedicine was at least equivalent to in-person visits in the ability to make an accurate diagnosis (OR 2.37, 95% C.I. 1.03–5.43). Compared to in-person encounters, video (versus phone only) visits were associated with increased confidence in the ability of telemedicine to formulate and communicate a treatment plan (OR 3.88, 95% C.I. 1.71–8.84). Conclusion: Spine surgeons are confident in the ability of telemedicine to communicate with patients, but are concerned about its capacity to accurately make physical exam-based diagnoses. Future research should concentrate on standardizing the remote examination and the development of appropriate use criteria in order to increase provider confidence in telemedicine technology. © 2020, The Author(s).

Purpose: To utilize a global survey to elucidate spine surgeons’ perspectives towards research and resident education within telemedicine. Methods: A cross-sectional, anonymous email survey was circulated to the members of AO Spine, an international organization consisting of spine surgeons from around the world. Questions were selected and revised using a Delphi approach. A major portion of the final survey queried participants on experiences with telemedicine in training, the utility of telemedicine for research, and the efficacy of telemedicine as a teaching tool. Responses were compared by region. Results: A total of 485 surgeons completed the survey between May 15, 2020 and May 31, 2020. Though most work regularly with trainees (83.3%) and 81.8% agreed that telemedicine should be incorporated into clinical education, 61.7% of respondents stated that trainees are not present during telemedicine visits. With regards to the types of clinical education that telemedicine could provide, only 33.9% of respondents agreed that interpretation of physical exam maneuvers can be taught (mean score = − 0.28, SD = ± 1.13). The most frequent research tasks performed over telehealth were follow-up of imaging (28.7%) and study group meetings (26.6%). Of all survey responses provided by members, there were no regional differences (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). Conclusions: Our study of spine surgeons worldwide noted high agreement among specialists for the implantation of telemedicine in trainee curricula, underscoring the global acceptance of this medium for patient management going forward. A greater emphasis towards trainee participation as well as establishing best practices in telemedicine are essential to equip future spine specialists with the necessary skills for navigating this emerging platform. © 2021, The Author(s).

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic forced many surgeons to adopt “virtual medicine” practices, defined as telehealth services for patient care and online platforms for continuing medical education. The purpose of this study was to assess spine surgeon reliance on virtual medicine during the pandemic and to discuss the future of virtual medicine in spine surgery. Methods: A comprehensive survey addressing demographic data and virtual medicine practices was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide between March 27, 2020, and April 4, 2020. Results: 902 spine surgeons representing seven global regions responded. 35.6% of surgeons were identified as “high telehealth users,” conducting more than half of clinic visits virtually. Predictors of high telehealth utilization included working in an academic practice (OR = 1.68, p = 0.0015) and practicing in Europe/North America (OR 3.42, p < 0.0001). 80.1% of all surgeons were interested in online education. Dedicating more than 25% of one’s practice to teaching (OR = 1.89, p = 0.037) predicted increased interest in online education. 26.2% of respondents were identified as “virtual medicine surgeons,” defined as surgeons with both high telehealth usage and increased interest in online education. Living in Europe/North America and practicing in an academic practice increased odds of being a virtual medicine surgeon by 2.28 (p = 0.002) and 1.15 (p = 0.0082), respectively. 93.8% of surgeons reported interest in a centralized platform facilitating surgeon-to-surgeon communication. Conclusion: COVID-19 has changed spine surgery by triggering rapid adoption of virtual medicine practices. The demonstrated global interest in virtual medicine suggests that it may become part of the “new normal” for surgeons in the post-pandemic era. © 2021, The Author(s).

Introduction: While telemedicine usage has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains little consensus about how spine surgeons perceive virtual care. The purpose of this study was to explore international perspectives of spine providers on the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. Methods: Responses from 485 members of AO Spine were analyzed, covering provider perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. All questions were optional, and blank responses were excluded from analysis. Results: The leading challenges reported by surgeons were decreased ability to perform physical examinations (38.6%), possible increased medicolegal exposure (19.3%), and lack of reimbursement parity compared to traditional visits (15.5%). Fewer than 9.0% of respondents experienced technological issues. On average, respondents agreed that telemedicine increases access to care for rural/long-distance patients, provides societal cost savings, and increases patient convenience. Responses were mixed about whether telemedicine leads to greater patient satisfaction. North Americans experienced the most challenges, but also thought telemedicine carried the most benefits, whereas Africans reported the fewest challenges and benefits. Age did not affect responses. Conclusion: Spine surgeons are supportive of the benefits of telemedicine, and only a small minority experienced technical issues. The decreased ability to perform the physical examination was the top challenge and remains a major obstacle to virtual care for spine surgeons around the world, although interestingly, 61.4% of providers did not acknowledge this to be a major challenge. Significant groundwork in optimizing remote physical examination maneuvers and achieving legal and reimbursement clarity is necessary for widespread implementation. © 2021, The Author(s).