Challenging assumptions: "unveiling meritocracy's reality in neurosurgery".

Introduction: Meritocracy, a concept revered as the cornerstone of fairness and equal opportunity, is critically examined in the context of neurosurgery. This article challenges the notion that success in this demanding field is solely determined by individual abilities and effort. It reveals that factors such as background, gender, and socioeconomic status significantly influence one's career trajectory. By investigating how these systemic barriers impact admissions to neurosurgical training programs and professional advancement, the paper underscores the complexity of meritocracy in neurosurgery, suggesting that the meritocratic ideal is more nuanced and influenced by external variables than commonly believed. Results: Certain universities deemed elite offer a curriculum divergent from that of their counterparts in low and middle-income countries. Students at these "elite" institutions gain exposure to new technologies and research incentives, which brings us to the realm of research. Remarkably, 75% of articles originating from developed nations account for just 25% of traumatic brain injury cases. This disparity highlights a significant research imbalance, and the common refrain underscores the need to bolster research capabilities in low-income countries. For neurosurgeons in the developing world, engaging in research often becomes a luxury due to multifaceted challenges. Financial barriers, including publication costs and paywalls for accessing articles, pose significant hurdles. Comparing salaries between countries underscores the glaring divide according to "Neurosurgeon Salary" in 2024. Neurosurgeons in the United States receive a median salary of $412,000 dollars per year, compared to $13,200 dollars in Latin America, as of June 2023. Given such incongruities, the prospect of even attending conferences or workshops abroad remains difficult for neurosurgeons from developing nations. Research isn't cast aside due to a lack of interest but due to resource limitations. The present landscape demands reconsideration. Conclusion: We underscore the journey towards a more inclusive and equitable future in neurosurgery as not just a goal, but a dynamic process fuelled by resilience, collaboration, and a commitment to diversity. The narrative promotes a collective endeavour to dismantle barriers and embrace innovation, emphasizing the importance of mentorship, cross-institutional collaboration, and the amplification of underrepresented voices.

Personalized Interventional Surgery of the Lumbar Spine: A Perspective on Minimally Invasive and Neuroendoscopic Decompression for Spinal Stenosis.

Pain generator-based lumbar spinal decompression surgery is the backbone of modern spine care. In contrast to traditional image-based medical necessity criteria for spinal surgery, assessing the severity of neural element encroachment, instability, and deformity, staged management of common painful degenerative lumbar spine conditions is likely to be more durable and cost-effective. Targeting validated pain generators can be accomplished with simplified decompression procedures associated with lower perioperative complications and long-term revision rates. In this perspective article, the authors summarize the current concepts of successful management of spinal stenosis patients with modern transforaminal endoscopic and translaminar minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques. They represent the consensus statements of 14 international surgeon societies, who have worked in collaborative teams in an open peer-review model based on a systematic review of the existing literature and grading the strength of its clinical evidence. The authors found that personalized clinical care protocols for lumbar spinal stenosis rooted in validated pain generators can successfully treat most patients with sciatica-type back and leg pain including those who fail to meet traditional image-based medical necessity criteria for surgery since nearly half of the surgically treated pain generators are not shown on the preoperative MRI scan. Common pain generators in the lumbar spine include (a) an inflamed disc, (b) an inflamed nerve, (c) a hypervascular scar, (d) a hypertrophied superior articular process (SAP) and ligamentum flavum, (e) a tender capsule, (f) an impacting facet margin, (g) a superior foraminal facet osteophyte and cyst, (h) a superior foraminal ligament impingement, (i) a hidden shoulder osteophyte. The position of the key opinion authors of the perspective article is that further clinical research will continue to validate pain generator-based treatment protocols for lumbar spinal stenosis. The endoscopic technology platform enables spine surgeons to directly visualize pain generators, forming the basis for more simplified targeted surgical pain management therapies. Limitations of this care model are dictated by appropriate patient selection and mastering the learning curve of modern MIS procedures. Decompensated deformity and instability will likely continue to be treated with open corrective surgery. Vertically integrated outpatient spine care programs are the most suitable setting for executing such pain generator-focused programs.

Rompiendo el efecto ''techo de cristal'' en la generación de evidencia clínica de alto nivel en ortopedia y traumatología / Breaking the "glass ceiling" effect in the generation of high-level clinical evidence in orthopedics and traumatology

Introduction: In clinical studies involving common orthopedic problems and traumatic injuries, randomization methods are difficult to orchestrate. The lack of high-level clinical evidence based on prospective, randomized, double-blind studies is often cited as a major reason for rejecting proposed therapeutic advances in orthopedic surgery. Materials and methods: This opinion document summarizes the limitations of clinical trials in surgical subspecialties. A consensus is presented about how the practicing orthopedic surgeon can produce high-quality clinical evidence and thus make changes to their clinical practice protocols. Results: This literature review revealed that level of evidence classifications vary among surgical subspecialties. Research in orthopedics and traumatology is primarily directed toward diagnosis, preferred treatment, and economic decision analysis, while other prognostic classifications are preferred in other areas, such as plastic surgery. In orthopedics, double-blind controlled studies are rare and often impractical or even unethical. Crossover between randomized surgical trials of study groups is more common. Other difficulties in surgical trials range from: lack of organizational and financial support, institutional approval or ethics committee and registration requirements for clinical trials, and to insufficient time outside of an already busy clinical program to dedicate to this laborious task. uncompensated task. Conclusion: Orthopedic surgery is a subspecialty based on experience and skill. Many innovations begin with enterprising surgeons reporting opinion reports or retrospective cohort studies, many of which are biased. Prospective observational cohort studies with consistent results may offer higher grade clinical evidence than poorly executed randomized trials.