Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34218620›Full record

ArticleNeurospine2021

Are Lumbar Fusion Guidelines Followed? A Survey of North American Spine Surgeons.

Thiago S Montenegro, Christopher Elia, Kevin Hines, Zorica Buser, Jefferson Wilson, Zoher Ghogawala, Shekar N Kurpad, Daniel M Sciubba, James S Harrop

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurospine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Large language models in the vertical integration of spine surgery workflow: a scoping review.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 · 2026
    Review
  2. Laminectomy aloneWorld journal of orthopedics · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Efficacy for Whitlockite for Augmenting Spinal Fusion.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Thiago S MontenegroDepartment of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Christopher EliaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Kevin HinesDepartment of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Zorica BuserDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jefferson WilsonDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Zoher GhogawalaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA.
Shekar N KurpadDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Daniel M SciubbaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
James S HarropDepartment of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the use of guidelines for lumbar spine fusions among spine surgeons in North America.

methodsAn anonymous survey was electronically sent to all AO Spine North America members. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their opinion surrounding the suitability of instrumented fusion in a variety of clinical scenarios. Fusion indications in accordance with North America Spine Society (NASS) guidelines for lumbar fusion were considered NASS-concordant answers. Respondents were considered to have a NASS-concordant approach if ≥ 70% (13 of 18) of their answers were NASS-concordant answers. Comparisons were performed using bivariable statistics.

resultsA total of 105 responses were entered with complete data available on 70. Sixty percent of the respondents (n = 42) were considered compliant with NASS guidelines. NASS-discordant responses did not differ between surgeons who stated that they include the NASS guidelines in their decision-making algorithm (5.10 ± 1.96) and those that did not (4.68 ± 2.09) (p = 0.395). The greatest number of NASS-discordant answers in the United States. was in the South (5.75 ± 2.09), with the lowest number in the Northeast (3.84 ± 1.70) (p < 0.01). For 5 survey items, rates of NASS-discordant answers were ≥ 40%, with the greatest number of NASS-discordant responses observed in relation to indications for fusion in spinal deformity (80%). Spine surgeons utilizing a NASS-concordant approach had a significant lower number of NASS-discordant answers for synovial cysts (p = 0.03), axial low back pain (p < 0.01), adjacent level disease (p < 0.01), recurrent stenosis (p < 0.01), recurrent disc herniation (p = 0.01), and foraminal stenosis (p < 0.01).

conclusionThis study serves an important role in clarifying the rates of uptake of clinical practice guidelines in spine surgery as well as to identify barriers to their implementation.

Indexed as

AO Spine North AmericaLumbar fusion indicationsNorth America Spine Society

Identifiers

PMID34218620
PMCPMC8255757

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.