Abstract
Spine surgery is a highly skill-dependent specialty, where the surgeon’s expertise plays a critical role in determining patient outcomes. Despite the traditional emphasis on randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses as the gold standard for clinical research, these methodologies may fall short in accounting for the variability in surgeon proficiency, which significantly influences success rates in spine surgery. This perspective article examines the limitations of relying solely on randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses in skill-driven fields such as spine surgery and argues for a broader research paradigm that incorporates the role of surgical skill and experience. Alternative methodologies, such as observational studies, surgeon-led outcome tracking, and surgical registries, are proposed to better capture the real-world complexities of spine surgery. This perspective article emphasizes the importance of structured training programs, continuous professional development, and proficiency-based education models in improving surgical outcomes. A call to action is made for policymakers, professional organizations, and academic institutions to shift the focus of spine surgery research toward integrating surgeon expertise alongside traditional evidence-based approaches, ultimately fostering innovation and improving patient care.
- Spine surgery research
- surgeon expertise
- surgical skill
- clinical outcomes
- proficiency-based training
- spine surgery innovation
- real-world evidence
- continuous professional development
Introduction
Spine surgery is one of the most technically demanding specialties in medicine. The complexity of spinal anatomy and the precision required to operate on this delicate structure mean that the surgeon’s proficiency, experience, and expertise are paramount in determining patient outcomes. Historically, the field of clinical research, particularly in surgical specialties, has placed a heavy emphasis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses as the ultimate standards of evidence to minimize bias. However, while these methodologies have provided invaluable data, they may fall short in accurately reflecting the complexities of spine surgery. Double blinding is impractical, as both surgeons and patients are aware of the procedure, and many spine surgery RCTs evolve into controlled observational cohort studies with intent-to-treat analyses.
This limitation is often referred to as the “glass ceiling” effect,1,2 where RCTs are considered the gold standard, yet many surgical innovations have historically been implemented without them. For example, several key orthopedic procedures—such as arthroscopic meniscus surgery3,4 and vertebroplasty5—were widely adopted despite lacking high-quality RCT validation. The “glass ceiling” refers to the constraints of the current evidence-based grading system, which prioritizes level I evidence from RCTs while overlooking consistent findings from lower-level studies (levels II, III, and IV). In surgical fields, where experience and technical proficiency heavily influence outcomes, breaking through this ceiling can be nearly impossible, as randomization in surgical patients poses significant challenges. As such, alternative methodologies such as prospective cohort studies coupled with survival analysis may offer more practical and informative insights into the long-term benefits of surgical interventions when traditional RCTs fall short.
In spine surgery, outcomes are often influenced more by the surgeon’s skill and experience than by the specific technique or technology employed. Thus, relying solely on traditional clinical trial methods may not fully capture its subtleties. The randomized nature of clinical trials tends to standardize patient variables but often overlooks the variability of surgeon expertise, which can be the most critical determinant of success or failure in complex procedures. As such, it is crucial to reconsider the current emphasis on RCTs and meta-analyses and to refocus on the role of surgeon clinical acumen and experience in driving innovation and improving patient outcomes in spine surgery.
This perspective article rigorously evaluates the limitations inherent in traditional clinical research pertaining to spine surgery and advocates for a heightened focus on surgeon proficiency and clinical expertise. A detailed examination of the latter is in accordance with Sackett’s original definition of evidence-based medicine (EBM),6 which posits that clinical research, patient values, and the clinician’s clinical expertise are 3 integral components of the EBM framework. Consequently, the authors explore the influence of expertise and experience on patient outcomes while addressing the deficiencies in current research methodologies that overly prioritize RCTs and rigid adherence to EBM grading criteria, which inadvertently diminishes the importance of clinical observations in the skill-dependent domain of spine surgery. The authors propose alternative methodologies that elevate surgical expertise alongside EBM, as initially defined. By redirecting the research focus, the authors seek to cultivate a more comprehensive understanding of patient care and drive innovation within the field of spine surgery.
The Critical Role of Surgeon Skill in Spine Surgery
Spine surgery is inherently complex, requiring a deep understanding of spinal anatomy, biomechanics, and neurovascular structures combined with the ability to execute precise surgical maneuvers. The margin for error in these procedures is exceptionally thin, and even minor mistakes can result in significant complications, including nerve damage, paralysis, or persistent pain.7 For this reason, the proficiency of the surgeon performing the operation is one of the most crucial factors influencing patient outcomes.
Surgeon expertise, particularly in spine surgery, is developed over years of rigorous training, continuous practice, and extensive experience with a variety of complex cases. In an era where technological advancements such as robotics, navigation systems, virtual and augmented reality, and machine learning play an increasingly prominent role, the expertise of the spine surgeon remains a crucial element of success. Unlike other specialties where standardized techniques can be more easily replicated, spine surgery often requires real-time decision-making, adaptability, and the ability to manage unforeseen complications—qualities that are honed only through experience. These aspects of surgical proficiency are challenging to quantify in clinical trials or replicate with technology, yet they have a profound and irreplaceable impact on surgical outcomes. Despite the rise of advanced technologies, the combination of a surgeon’s operative abilities and judgment with technological tools ensures the highest levels of safety and efficacy in treating complex spinal pathologies.
For example, a seasoned spine surgeon may achieve better outcomes in a complex lumbar fusion procedure compared with a less experienced surgeon,8 not because of any difference in the procedure itself but due to their greater expertise in handling intraoperative variables such as patient anatomy variations, intraoperative bleeding, or difficult instrument positioning.9 Similarly, cervical spine procedures, which carry the risk of spinal cord injury, require an even higher level of precision and experience to ensure optimal patient outcomes.10
Research has shown that surgeon experience correlates with lower complication rates and improved patient recovery.11 For instance, a study in The Spine Journal 12 found that patients treated by high-volume spine surgeons had significantly lower rates of postoperative complications and reoperations compared with those treated by lower-volume surgeons. These findings underscore the importance of surgeon expertise in spine surgery and suggest that focusing on procedural dexterity and experience may be more relevant to improving patient outcomes than relying solely on randomized trial data.
Limitations of RCTs and Meta-Analyses in Spine Surgery
RCTs and meta-analyses have long been considered the gold standard for clinical research, providing high levels of evidence that guide medical practice.6 These methodologies are designed to minimize bias by randomizing patient populations and ensuring that outcomes are compared across standardized interventions. In many fields of medicine, particularly pharmacology, this approach has led to breakthroughs in treatment protocols and patient care. However, in the context of spine surgery—an inherently skill-driven specialty—RCTs and meta-analyses present significant limitations.
The primary shortcoming of RCTs in spine surgery is their failure to account for surgeon variability. While these trials excel at controlling patient-related variables and standardizing the procedures under investigation, they often overlook the profound impact that the surgeon’s expertise has on outcomes. Two surgeons may perform the same procedure on similar patients under the conditions of an RCT, yet the outcomes can differ dramatically based on each surgeon’s technical ability, decision-making, and experience.13 Consequently, RCTs in spine surgery may not always reflect the true effectiveness of a procedure in the hands of less experienced surgeons, nor highlight the potential for superior outcomes in the hands of highly competent experts.14
Meta-analyses, which aggregate data from multiple studies, suffer from similar drawbacks. Although these analyses aim to provide a broader understanding of treatment efficacy by combining results from different trials, they often fail to account for variations in surgical expertise across the studies included. The data may show that a particular intervention is statistically effective, but the real-world application of that intervention can vary significantly based on who is performing the surgery.15 This gap between statistical outcomes and clinical reality is particularly stark in spine surgery, where surgeon proficiency is a critical determinant of success.
Moreover, RCTs and meta-analyses are limited in their ability to adapt to the rapid evolution of surgical techniques and technologies. Spine surgery is a field where innovation occurs at a fast pace, with new tools, techniques, and approaches being introduced regularly. By the time an RCT is completed and published, the technique being studied may already be outdated or improved upon, rendering the trial’s findings less relevant to current practice. This lag in evidence generation can hinder the adoption of newer, potentially more effective surgical techniques, especially if surgeons are reluctant to deviate from established protocols due to a lack of high-level evidence.16
Finally, the rigid structure of RCTs can fail to capture the individualized nature of spine surgery. In practice, surgeons must tailor their approach to each patient based on unique anatomical considerations, comorbidities, and intraoperative findings. This level of personalization is difficult to incorporate into the highly controlled and standardized environment of an RCT. As a result, clinical trials may provide a one-size-fits-all solution that does not adequately reflect the nuanced decision-making required in real-world spine surgery.16
Beyond the Traditional Paradigm: Alternative Methods of Research
Given the limitations of traditional clinical trials in the context of technical competence-driven specialties such as spine surgery, there is a growing need to explore alternative research methodologies that better account for the impact of surgeon expertise on patient outcomes. Observational studies, surgeon-led outcome tracking, and the use of surgical registries are emerging as valuable tools for capturing the complexity of spine surgery and providing a more accurate picture of what truly drives success in this field.
Observational studies offer an important advantage over RCTs by allowing researchers to study real-world outcomes without the need for strict randomization and control. These studies can incorporate a wide range of variables, including surgeon experience, and provide insights into how different levels of expertise affect patient outcomes across diverse patient populations.17 Additionally, observational studies can capture long-term outcomes more effectively than RCTs, which are often limited by shorter follow-up periods.
Surgical registries, which collect data from large numbers of procedures performed by multiple surgeons, provide another valuable source of real-world evidence. These registries can track outcomes across a wide range of surgeon experience levels, enabling researchers to identify trends and correlations between surgical operative finesse and patient results. For example, the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program has been instrumental in highlighting the impact of surgeon experience on complication rates in various surgical specialties,18–20 including spine surgery.21 By leveraging data from these registries, spine surgery research can better reflect the real-world variability in surgeon expertise and its impact on outcomes. However, there are several limitations that undermine their ability to produce high-quality evidence.22–24 These registries often collect nonrandomized data, making them prone to selection bias because patients are not randomly assigned to treatment groups—a key method for reducing bias in clinical research. Additionally, data submission is typically voluntary and varies in detail and accuracy across centers, leading to inconsistent data quality and limiting the ability to draw reliable conclusions. Another significant issue is the heterogeneity of treatments and patient populations in spine surgery. Registries often group different types of surgeries and diagnoses together, which dilutes the insights into specific procedures or populations. Furthermore, incomplete long-term follow-up is common,25 making it difficult to assess the durability of treatment outcomes or late complications.26 Outcomes such as pain relief, functional status, and reoperation rates are multifaceted, and registries may not capture all relevant metrics or rely heavily on patient self-reports, which can introduce bias.26 Additionally, underreporting of negative outcomes or complications due to reporting bias or inconsistent definitions across sites can skew the data.27
Alternatively, outcome tracking at the individual surgeon level allows for continuous monitoring of performance and provides a feedback loop for the development of procedural dexterity. By systematically tracking their own outcomes, surgeons can identify areas for improvement and refine their techniques over time. This approach not only enhances individual performance but also contributes valuable data to the broader research community, as aggregated outcome data can provide insights into how the development of clinical and surgical competence correlates with patient results.28
Real-world evidence is increasingly recognized as a valuable complement to traditional clinical trials, particularly in specialties like spine surgery, where the surgeon’s role is so pivotal. By incorporating data from observational studies, registries, and individual outcome tracking, the field of spine surgery can move toward a more nuanced understanding of what drives success, with greater emphasis on the role of surgeon expertise.29
Skill Development and Training: Impact on Surgical Outcomes
The impact of surgeon competence on patient outcomes underscores the importance of structured training programs and continuous professional development in spine surgery.30 Residency programs, fellowships, and ongoing education are critical components of developing and refining the skills necessary for success in this field. However, traditional training models may not always provide the depth of experience required to master the complexities of spine surgery.31
Proficiency-based training models, which focus on achieving specific competencies rather than completing a set number of procedures, have shown promise in improving surgical outcomes.32 These models prioritize the development of technical craftsmanship through deliberate practice and simulation, allowing surgeons to gain experience in a controlled environment before performing procedures on patients. By ensuring that surgeons have reached a high level of proficiency before entering the operating room, these training models can reduce the learning curve and improve patient outcomes.33
Fellowships in spine surgery provide an additional layer of specialized training, offering surgeons the opportunity to hone their skills under the guidance of experienced mentors.31 These programs are particularly important in a field as complex as spine surgery, where the ability to handle challenging cases and manage complications requires years of experience. Fellowship-trained spine surgeons have been shown to achieve better outcomes than their non–fellowship-trained counterparts, further highlighting the importance of advanced training in this specialty.34
Continuous professional development is also essential for maintaining and improving surgical acumen over the course of a career. Spine surgery is a rapidly evolving field, and staying up-to-date with the latest techniques and technologies is crucial for delivering the best possible care. Regular participation in workshops, conferences, and hands-on training sessions allows surgeons to refine their abilities and incorporate new approaches into their practice.35,36 In this way, ongoing education plays a vital role in ensuring that spine surgeons remain at the forefront of their field.
Bridging the Gap Between Research and Practice: Integration of SkillS in Research
For spine surgery to advance meaningfully, there must be a stronger link between the research that drives clinical guidelines and the real-world expertise that defines successful patient outcomes. Historically, clinical research has focused on treatment methodologies, with RCTs and meta-analyses providing a structured means to evaluate procedural efficacy. However, spine surgery, as a skill-driven field, requires an integrated approach where the surgeon’s experience, decision-making, and mastery are accounted for in research design.2,29
One approach to bridging this gap is to use “expert-led” registries and observational studies where senior, highly experienced surgeons lead data collection efforts on newer techniques. By doing so, these initiatives can draw on the depth of expertise from seasoned professionals, identifying subtle indicators of successful outcomes that might be missed in more rigid clinical trials. Additionally, these studies can capture a broader range of real-world variables, offering insights into how different surgical techniques perform across varying levels of complexity and patient profiles.37
Surgeon-driven research initiatives, such as the establishment of collaborative registries that track long-term outcomes across different proficiency levels, are essential. For example, integrating real-time feedback systems within surgical settings allows for immediate data collection on surgeon performance. With the increasing use of digital health technologies, such systems can be incorporated to create a feedback loop for both research and training purposes. By analyzing outcomes based on real-world performance data, spine surgery can move toward a research model that emphasizes expertise and experience alongside traditional metrics of treatment efficacy.38
Another approach is to consider surgeon expertise as a variable in clinical trials. By stratifying trials based on surgeon experience or training level, researchers can better assess the interaction between technique, technology, and proficiency. For instance, a trial on a new minimally invasive spine surgery technique could include groups of surgeons at different experience levels, allowing for a comparison of outcomes not just across procedures but also across different levels of mastery. This would provide more granular insights into how surgeon proficiency affects patient outcomes and would help guide training programs to focus on those factors of procedural dexterity that most directly impact success.
The Need for a Shift in Research Focus
Spine surgeons’ clinical decision-making is primarily grounded in their postgraduate training, established clinical guidelines, and, most importantly, their practical experience. While new high-grade clinical evidence can offer valuable insights, the implementation of protocol changes based on such evidence is often slow. This is due to study limitations, such as strict patient selection and randomization criteria, which may not easily translate to a spine surgeon’s individual practice. Although surgeons may be eager to adopt new technologies and methodologies, they frequently revert to their established protocols, believing that the new data may not be applicable to their specific patient populations. This creates a disconnect between formal clinical evidence promoted by professional organizations, payers, and governmental health agencies and the real-world challenges encountered in clinical decision-making, obtaining authorization for surgery, and securing reimbursement.
The current emphasis on RCTs and meta-analyses as the cornerstone of evidence-based spine surgery risks overlooking the centrality of surgical expertise. While these methods have provided valuable insights into procedural effectiveness, they are limited in their capacity to account for the complex skill sets required in spine surgery. A shift is needed to recognize the unique demands of skill-driven specialties and to emphasize the integration of surgeon expertise into research.
There is a growing recognition among spine surgeons that RCTs, while essential, should not be the sole measure of innovation and efficacy, especially in surgical fields where the outcome is closely tied to the practitioner’s expertise.39 Spine surgery in particular requires a more flexible research framework that blends clinical trials with real-world evidence, observational studies, and skill-driven assessments. This new research paradigm should prioritize the identification of critical abilities that most influence patient outcomes and develop training programs designed to cultivate those abilities.
Discussion
Spine surgery is one of the most skill-dependent specialties in medicine, where patient outcomes are deeply influenced by the surgeon’s experience, expertise, and decision-making ability. Traditional research methodologies, such as RCTs and meta-analyses, provide a strong foundation for EBM but often fail to capture the nuances of surgical proficiency that are critical in determining clinical success. As the field continues to evolve with new technologies and techniques, it is essential to recognize and measure the role of surgical expertise in shaping outcomes.
One promising approach to integrating surgeon experience into clinical guidelines is leveraging psychometric tools such as the Rasch model. This methodology enables the quantification of expert consensus by transforming subjective clinical opinions into measurable data, which can be used to refine and update evidence-based guidelines. By systematically analyzing survey responses, the Rasch model can identify patterns in clinical practice, highlight gaps where consensus is lacking, and correlate surgeon expertise with patient outcomes. These insights can help shape more dynamic, living clinical guidelines that are continuously updated to reflect real-world surgical experience and emerging evidence.
Furthermore, the Rasch model facilitates a more comprehensive understanding of decision-making processes in spine surgery. It allows for statistical analysis of surgeon expertise and preference through partial agreement analysis and the identification of latent correlations via Q3 matrices. These capabilities provide a deeper psychometric perspective on what drives clinical decision-making and how different levels of expertise influence treatment choices. Importantly, this model is not intended to replace existing evidence classification and grading systems but rather to serve as a complementary tool that enhances such systems’ ability to assess surgical proficiency objectively.
As spine surgery incorporates increasingly complex technological advancements such as robotics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning, there is a growing need to standardize and refine surgical techniques while ensuring that guidelines remain adaptable. Engaging surgeons through society-sponsored surveys and actively involving them in guideline development will help create clinical protocols that are both scientifically rigorous and practically applicable. Additionally, professional organizations and policymakers should consider emphasizing demonstrated surgical proficiency in credentialing and continuous education initiatives to ensure that patients receive the highest standard of care. By integrating psychometric models like Rasch analysis with traditional evidence-based approaches, the field of spine surgery can move beyond rigid guideline structures and embrace a more experience-driven paradigm. This should not only improve the quality and relevance of clinical guidelines but also ensure that they reflect the realities of modern surgical practice, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes.
Footnotes
Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declare no conflict of interest relevant to this article, and there was no personal circumstance or interest that may be perceived as inappropriately influencing the authors' findings.
Editor's Note Drs. Lorio and Yuan are past presidents of the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS). Drs. Alves and Vaccaro are the international and U.S. presidents-elect of ISASS. Drs. Alves and Lewandrowski are chief deputy editors of the International Journal of Spine Surgery.
- This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Copyright © 2025 ISASS. To see more or order reprints or permissions, see http://ijssurgery.com.
References
- 1.↵Phillips FM , Cheng I , Rampersaud YR , et al . Breaking through the “glass ceiling” of minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41 Suppl 8:S39–S43. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001482
- 2.↵Solheim O . Randomized controlled trials in surgery and the glass ceiling effect. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2019;161(4):623–625. 10.1007/s00701-019-03850-3
- 3.↵Moseley JB , O’Malley K , Petersen NJ , et al . A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(2):81–88. 10.1056/NEJMoa013259
- 4.↵Sihvonen R , Paavola M , Malmivaara A , et al . Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(26):2515–2524. 10.1056/NEJMoa1305189
- 5.↵Buchbinder R , Osborne RH , Ebeling PR , et al . A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(6):557–568. 10.1056/NEJMoa0900429
- 6.↵Sackett DL . Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest. 1989;95(2 Suppl):2S–4S.
- 7.↵Malik AT , Panni UY , Mirza MU , Tetlay M , Noordin S . The impact of surgeon volume on patient outcome in spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(3):530–542. 10.1007/s00586-017-5447-2
- 8.↵Schupper AJ , Neifert SN , Martini ML , Gal JS , Yuk FJ , Caridi JM . Surgeon experience influences patient characteristics and outcomes in spine deformity surgery. Spine Deform. 2021;9(2):341–348. 10.1007/s43390-020-00227-w
- 9.↵Cahill PJ , Pahys JM , Asghar J , et al . The effect of surgeon experience on outcomes of surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(16):1333–1339. 10.2106/JBJS.M.01265
- 10.↵Patel MR , Jacob KC , Shah VP , et al . Impact of surgeon experience on outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022;30(5):e537–e546. 10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-01080
- 11.↵Calio BP , Kepler CK , Koerner JD , Rihn JA , Millhouse P , Radcliff KE . Outcome of a resident spine surgical skills training program. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(8):E1126–E1129. 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000211
- 12.↵Sarwahi V , Galina JM , Hasan SS , et al . 134. surgeon volume affects short- and long-term surgical outcomes in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine J. 2019;19(9):S65. 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.05.148
- 13.↵Farrokhyar F , Karanicolas PJ , Thoma A , et al . Randomized controlled trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg. 2010;251(3):409–416. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181cf863d
- 14.↵Solomon MJ , McLeod RS . Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations? Surgery. 1995;118(3):459–467. 10.1016/s0039-6060(05)80359-9
- 15.↵Fecso AB , Szasz P , Kerezov G , Grantcharov TP . The effect of technical performance on patient outcomes in surgery. Ann Surg. 2017;265(3):492–501. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001959
- 16.↵Hay MC , Weisner TS , Subramanian S , Duan N , Niedzinski EJ , Kravitz RL . Harnessing experience: exploring the gap between evidence-based medicine and clinical practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14(5):707–713. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01009.x
- 17.↵Lewandrovski KU , Alhammoud A , Lorio MP . Invited review: novel concepts in clinical guideline development in spine surgery. SpineLine. 2024.
- 18.↵Kelly-Hedrik M , Abd-El-Barr MM , Aarabi B , et al . Importance of prospective registries and clinical research networks in the evolution of spinal cord injury care. J Neurotrauma. 2023;40(17–18):1834–1848. 10.1089/neu.2022.0450
- 19.↵Ko CY , Hall BL , Hart AJ , Cohen ME , Hoyt DB . The American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program: achieving better and safer surgery. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015;41(5):199–204. 10.1016/s1553-7250(15)41026-8
- 20.↵Harrop JS , Mohamed B , Bisson EF , et al . Congress of neurological surgeons systematic review and evidence-based guidelines for perioperative spine: preoperative surgical risk assessment. Neurosurgery. 2021;89(Suppl 1):S9–S18. 10.1093/neuros/nyab316
- 21.↵Jones RS , Brown C , Opelka F . Surgeon compensation: “Pay for performance,” the American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program, the surgical care improvement program, and other considerations. Surgery. 2005;138(5):829–836. 10.1016/j.surg.2005.08.015
- 22.↵Vinas-Rios JM , Rauschmann M , Sellei R , et al . Intra- and postoperative complications in the treatment of spinal metastase. A multicenter surveillance study from the german spinal registry (DWG-register). J Neurosurg Sci. 2022;66(6):535–541. 10.23736/S0390-5616.20.05029-8
- 23.↵Mekhail N , Armanyous S , Templeton E , Prayson N , Saweris Y . The choice of spinal cord stimulation versus targeted drug delivery in the management of chronic pain: validation of an outcomes predictive formula. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface. 2023;26(6):1218–1225. 10.1016/j.neurom.2023.02.083
- 24.↵Zuckerman SL , Chanbour H , Hassan FM , et al . Patients with coronal malalignment undergoing adult spinal deformity surgery: does coronal alignment change from immediately postoperative to 2-years? Clin Spine Surg. 2023;36(1):E14–E21. 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001359
- 25.↵Bisson EF , Mummaneni PV , Knightly J , et al . Assessing the differences in characteristics of patients lost to follow-up at 2 years: results from the quality outcomes database study on outcomes of surgery for grade i spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;33(5):643–651. 10.3171/2019.12.SPINE191155
- 26.↵Kaur S , Alhaug OK , Dolatowski FC , Solberg TK , Lønne G . Characteristics and outcomes of patients who did not respond to a national spine surgery registry. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023;24(1):164. 10.1186/s12891-023-06267-3
- 27.↵Mannion AF , Fekete TF , O’Riordan D , et al . Does loss to follow-up lead to an overestimation of treatment success? Findings from a spine surgery registry of over 15,000 patients. Eur Spine J. 2023;32(3):813–823. 10.1007/s00586-023-07541-7
- 28.↵Mabud T , Norden J , Veeravagu A , et al . Complications, readmissions, and revisions for spine procedures performed by orthopedic surgeons versus neurosurgeons: a retrospective, longitudinal study. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(10):E1376–E1381. 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000426
- 29.↵Lewandrowski K-U , León JFR , Dowling Á , et al . Breaking through the glass ceiling effect of high-grade clinical evidence creation in orthopaedics & trauma. Revista Colombiana de Ortopedia y Traumatología. 2022;36(4):215–228. 10.1016/j.rccot.2022.10.003
- 30.↵Malhotra AK , Hodaie M , Bernstein M . The culture of surgical training. Learning and Career Development in Neurosurgery, Values-Based Medical Education. 2022. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 2022:3–16. 10.1007/978-3-031-02078-0_1
- 31.↵Lewandrowski K-U , Elfar JC , Li Z-M , et al . The changing environment in postgraduate education in orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery and its impact on technology-driven targeted interventional and surgical pain management: perspectives from europe, latin america, asia, and the united states. J Pers Med. 2023;13(5):852. 10.3390/jpm13050852
- 32.↵Collins JW , Sridhar A , Kelly J . Surgical training benefits from the cumulative outcomes of proficiency-based training and mentorship. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(7):616. 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1041
- 33.↵Amato M , Gallagher AG . Proficiency-based progression simulation training: shortening the learning curve. Practical Simulation in Urology: Springer. 2022:41–62. 10.1007/978-3-030-88789-6_4
- 34.↵Pham MH , Jakoi AM , Wali AR , Lenke LG . Trends in spine surgery training during neurological and orthopaedic surgery residency: a 10-year analysis of acgme case log data. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(22):e122. 10.2106/JBJS.19.00466
- 35.↵Lewandrowski K-U , Telfeian AE , Hellinger S , et al . Difficulties, challenges, and the learning curve of avoiding complications in lumbar endoscopic spine surgery. Int J Spine Surg. 2021;15(suppl 3):S21–S37. 10.14444/8161
- 36.↵Ransom NA , Gollogly S , Lewandrowski KU , Yeung A . Navigating the learning curve of spinal endoscopy as an established traditionally trained spine surgeon. J Spine Surg. 2020;6(S1):S197–S207. 10.21037/jss.2019.10.03
- 37.↵Bonert M , Collins A , Xenodemetropoulos T , et al . Application of next generation quality/statistical process control and expert-led case review to increase the consistency of diagnostic rates in precancerous colorectal polyps. Qual Manag Health Care. 2021;30(3):176–183. 10.1097/QMH.0000000000000299
- 38.↵Asher AL , McCormick PC , Selden NR , Ghogawala Z , McGirt MJ . The national neurosurgery quality and outcomes database and neuropoint alliance: rationale, development, and implementation. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;34(1):E2. 10.3171/2012.10.FOCUS12311
- 39.↵McDonald E . Research and innovation in healthcare. healthcare management. Research and Innovation in Healthcare. Healthcare Management. London, UK: Open University Press; 2016.
