Search

Women have historically been underrepresented in academic medicine, particularly in surgical subspecialties. This study investigated potential associations between gender and promoting practices in academic neurosurgery. Faculty data, including time from residency, professorship, specialty, and h -index, were obtained from websites of the institutions listed in the American Association of Neurological Surgeons Neurosurgical Residency Training Program Directory. Demographics, training, and appointments were compared between male and female neurosurgeons. Predictors of professorship, chair, directorship, and division leadership were identified using multivariable models. The study examined 1629 faculty members. Women were more likely to be assistant professors (P < 0.0001), while men were more likely to be full professors (P < 0.0001), hold chair positions (P = 0.007), lead subspecialty divisions (P = 0.008), and have a higher Scopus h -index (P < 0.0001). In a multivariable analysis, years from training (P < 0.001), fellowship (P = 0.009), h -index (P < 0.001), and chair/program director/division leadership position (P < 0.001) were significant positive predictors of full professorship. Holding additional advanced degrees (P = 0.010), leading a subspecialty division (P = 0.005), and having a higher h -index (P = 0.002) positively predicted chair position. However, when accounting for all other factors, gender was not a significant predictor of full professorship, division leadership, chair, or program directorship. While significantly more men hold leadership positions in U.S. academic institutions, after controlling for contributing variables, there did not appear to be an association between gender and full professorship, division leadership, chair, or program directorship in academic neurosurgery. While the field still has significant work to do to achieve gender equity, these results may serve as encouragement to women who are looking to advance their careers in academic neurosurgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regional differences in outcomes after spine surgery are poorly understood. We assessed disability and quality-of-life outcomes by geographic region in the United States using the NeuroPoint Alliance Quality Outcomes Database. We queried the prospective Quality Outcomes Database patient registry to identify patients who underwent elective 1- or 2-level lumbar surgery for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis from July 2014 through June 2016. Primary outcome measures included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D) reported at 24 months postoperatively. Differences in EQ-5D and ODI were compared across geographic regions of the United States (Northeast, Midwest, South, West). We identified 608 patients from 12 centers who underwent surgery. Of these, 517 (85.0%) had ODI data and 492 (80.9%) had EQ-5D data at 24 months. Southern states had the largest representation (304 patients; 5 centers), followed by Northeastern (114 patients; 3 centers), Midwestern (96 patients; 2 centers), and Western (94 patients; 2 centers) states. Baseline ODI scores were significantly different among regions, with the South having the greatest baseline disability burden (Northeast: 40.9 ± 16.9, South: 51.2 ± 15.8, Midwest: 40.9 ± 17.8, West: 45.0 ± 17.1, P < 0.001). The change in ODI at 24 months postoperatively was significantly different among regions, with the South showing the greatest ODI improvement (Northeast: −21.1 ± 18.2, South: −26.5 ± 20.2, Midwest: −18.2 ± 22.9, West: −21.7 ± 19.6, P < 0.001). All regions had ≥60% achievement of the minimum clinically important difference in ODI at 24 months postoperatively. No regional differences were observed for EQ-5D. Significant regional variation exists for disability outcomes, but not quality of life, at 24 months after spinal surgery for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Though women now comprise approximately 21.5% of all neurosurgery residents in the United States, women only represent 10% of practicing neurosurgeons nationally. Serving as a journal editor is 1 measure of academic success. We investigated characteristics of editorial boards for top neurosurgical journals to identify factors influencing membership on editorial boards. We sought to identify gender differences to explain the paucity of women on editorial boards., Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of editorial boards for the top 10 English-language neurosurgical journals. Data were obtained from journal websites, program faculty lists, or physician online profiles. Gender differences were compared using Student t test and χ 2 analysis., Results: Seven hundred twenty-two editorial board members were examined (female n = 65; male n = 650; unidentified n = 7). Overall, women had fewer years in practice (P = 0.002) and more often had additional advanced degrees (P = 0.009) while men had higher h-indices (P < 0.0001). Within the boards of Neurosurgery and Acta Neurochirurgica, men had been in practice longer (P = 0.014; P = 0.023) and had higher h-indices (P = 0.003; P = 0.025). Male editors for Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine and World Neurosurgery had higher h-indices (P = 0.007; P = 0.018)., Conclusions: Women constitute ∼9% of editorial boards for top neurosurgical journals, a percentage comparable to the amount of practicing female academic neurosurgeons. This finding is encouraging as in that there appears to be no readily identifiable bias in the selection of editorial board members. The differences in years in practice and h-index suggest that gender distribution may equalize with time as more women enter practice and produce scientific literature. Efforts to recruit and retain women in neurosurgery should be pursued to rectify this discrepancy., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: It remains unclear how type of insurance coverage affects long-term, spine-specific patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This study sought to elucidate the impact of insurance on clinical outcomes after lumbar spondylolisthesis surgery., Methods: The prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry was queried for patients with grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent single-segment surgery. Twenty-four-month PROs were compared and included Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) back pain, NRS leg pain, EuroQol-5D, and North American Spine Society Satisfaction., Results: A total of 608 patients undergoing surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (mean age, 62.5 ± 11.5 years and 59.2% women) were selected. Insurance types included private insurance (n = 319; 52.5%), Medicare (n = 235; 38.7%), Medicaid (n = 36; 5.9%), and Veterans Affairs (VA)/government (n = 17; 2.8%). One patient (0.2%) was uninsured and was removed from the analyses. Regardless of insurance status, compared to baseline, all 4 cohorts improved significantly regarding ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and EQ-5D scores (P < 0.001). In adjusted multivariable analyses, compared with patients with private insurance, Medicaid was associated with worse 24-month postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (β = 10.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9-16.5; P = 0.002) and NRS leg pain (β =1.3; 95% CI, 0.3-2.4; P = 0.02). Medicaid was associated with worse EuroQol-5D scores compared with private insurance (β = -0.07; 95% CI -0.01 to -0.14; P = 0.03), but not compared with Medicare and VA/government insurance (P > 0.05). Medicaid was associated with lower odds of reaching ODI minimal clinically important difference (odds ratio, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.03-0.7; P = 0.02) compared with VA/government insurance. NRS back pain and North American Spine Society satisfaction did not differ by insurance coverage (P > 0.05)., Conclusions: Despite adjusting for potential confounding variables, Medicaid coverage was independently associated with worse 24-month PROs after lumbar spondylolisthesis surgery compared with other payer types. Although all improved postoperatively, those with Medicaid coverage had relatively inferior improvements., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), formerly known as the National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database (N2QOD), was established by the NeuroPoint Alliance (NPA) in collaboration with relevant national stakeholders and experts. The overarching goal of this project was to develop a centralized, nationally coordinated effort to allow individual surgeons and practice groups to collect, measure, and analyze practice patterns and neurosurgical outcomes. Specific objectives of this registry program were as follows: "1) to establish risk-adjusted national benchmarks for both the safety and effectiveness of neurosurgical procedures, 2) to allow practice groups and hospitals to analyze their individual morbidity and clinical outcomes in real time, 3) to generate both quality and efficiency data to support claims made to public and private payers and objectively demonstrate the value of care to other stakeholders, 4) to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of neurosurgical and spine procedures, 5) to develop sophisticated 'risk models' to determine which subpopulations of patients are most likely to benefit from specific surgical interventions, and 6) to facilitate essential multicenter trials and other cooperative clinical studies." The NPA has launched several neurosurgical specialty modules in the QOD program in the 7 years since its inception including lumbar spine, cervical spine, and spinal deformity and cerebrovascular and intracranial tumor. The QOD Spine modules, which are the primary subject of this paper, have evolved into the largest North American spine registries yet created and have resulted in unprecedented cooperative activities within our specialty and among affiliated spine care practitioners. Herein, the authors discuss the experience of QOD Spine programs to date, with a brief description of their inception, some of the key achievements and milestones, as well as the recent transition of the spine modules to the American Spine Registry (ASR), a collaboration between the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).