Global Spine Journal Research Articles

Global research hotspots and trends in the field of spine surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A bibliometric and visual analysis.

BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) significantly affected the healthcare and research systems, including spine surgery, throughout the world. A bibliometric analysis allows graphical visualization of the development of an academic field and its frontiers. Since research concerning spine surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is being constantly upgraded, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of this literature to investigate the current status, research hotspots, and trends in this field.MethodsWe searched the Web of Science database for literature published (from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2022) using the terms “COVID-19” OR “2019-nCoV” OR “SARS-CoV-2” AND “spine surgery” OR “spinal surgery” OR “discectomy” OR “decompression” OR “laminectomy” OR “interbody fusion” OR “pedicle screws.” Detailed bibliometric and visual analysis of the number of publications, geographical distribution, institutions, journals, authors, and keywords was done using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and R-Bibliometrix.ResultsOf the initially screened 173 articles, we included 84 relevant articles—62 original articles, 10 editorial materials, 8 reviews, and 4 others. The United States, China, Egypt, and Argentina were most actively publishing in the field of spine surgery and COVID-19. The AOSpine International community contributed 7 articles (24 citations). The Hospital for Special Surgery (13.1%) and Johns Hopkins University (13.1%) were institutions with the most publications. Using the Law of Bradford, we found that World Neurosurgery, Global Spine Journal, and European Spine Journal are the core journals in this field, with P. K. Louie being the most influential author. “Elective surgery,” “intensive care,” “telehealth,” “patient satisfaction,” and “follow-up” had the strongest citation bursts.ConclusionsDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, spine surgeons were more concerned with surgical timing, care, treatment, and patient’s quality of life. Accordingly, research hotspots in spine surgery during the pandemic shifted from “early healthcare” to “virus management” and “experience and education.”

Manuscript characteristics associated with the altmetrics score and social media presence: an analysis of seven spine journals

Impact factor, citation rate, and other traditional measures of scholarly impact do not account for the role that social media has in the dissemination of research. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) quantifies the active online presence of individual articles on various platforms (eg, Twitter, Facebook). We sought to better understand the factors associated with greater online attention and AAS in seven spine journals. Cross-sectional study. No patients were included in this study. We analyzed 380 articles in seven major spine journals. Extracted manuscript characteristics included AAS; number of Twitter, Facebook, and news outlet mentions; number of citations, references, academic institutions, and authors; and sample size, geographic region, subject of study, and level of evidence. All original scientific manuscripts published in the official January, February, and March 2017 issues of Spine, The Spine Journal, Spine Deformity, Journal of Neurosurgery-Spine, Clinical Spine Surgery, Global Spine Journal, and European Spine Journal were identified. The correlation of AAS and number of citations was determined by Spearman's Rho (ρ) correlation coefficient. Manuscript factors associated with AAS were determined by a multivariable linear regression analysis. A total of 380 manuscripts were included in the analysis. The average AAS across all seven journals was 4.9 (SD: 19.4; Range: 0-356), with the highest average AAS reported for The Spine Journal at 8.0 (SD: 13; Range: 0-60). There was a weak, positive correlation between AAS and number of citations (ρ=.32; p < .05); this relationship was individually present for four out of the seven included journals. In addition, number of references was associated with higher average manuscript AAS (β: 0.16 [95% CI: 0.002-0.32]; p < .05). No manuscript characteristics were associated with lower AAS. Our analysis of seven spine journals revealed a weak, positive correlation between AAS and number of citations. Number of references was associated with higher AAS. We believe these findings may be useful to authors seeking ways to maximize the impact of their research.

Reference accuracy in spine surgery.

The references list is an important part of a scientific article that serves to confirm the accuracy of the authors' statements. The goal of this study was to evaluate the reference accuracy in the field of spine surgery. Four major peer-reviewed spine surgery journals were chosen for this study based on their subspecialty clinical impact factors. Sixty articles per journal were selected from 12 issues each of The Spine Journal, Spine, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and 40 articles were selected from 8 issues of Global Spine Journal, for a total of 220 articles. All the articles were published in 2019 and were selected using computer-generated numbers. From the references list of each article, one reference was again selected by using a computer-generated number and then checked for citation or quotation errors. The results indicate that 84.1% of articles have a minor citation error, 4.5% of articles have a major citation error, 9.5% of articles have a minor quotation error, and 9.1% of articles have a major quotation error. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine had the fewest citation errors compared with the other journals evaluated in this study. Using chi-square analysis, no association was determined between the occurrence of errors and potential markers of reference mistakes. Still, statistical significance was found between the occurrence of citation errors and the spine journals tested. In order to advance medical treatment and patient care in spine surgery, detailed documentation and attention to detail are necessary. The results from this study illustrate that improved reference accuracy is required.

Moving Forward into the Future

This is the final issue of Global Spine Journal for 2016. As the year draws to a close, we would like to update our readers, authors, and reviewers with the changes that will be made next year. This issue is also our final issue that we publish with Thieme Publishers. On behalf of the entire Editorial Board, we would like to thank Thieme for their past services to GSJ and EBSJ over the last 5 years. Thieme has helped the journal grow and flourish, and we appreciate all of their past hard work and dedication.

Updates from Global Spine Congress.

Global Spine Journal (GSJ) and many of its editorial board attended Global Spine Congress in Dubai this April. GSJ hosted two successful AOSpine members only sessions on “How to Write, Publish, and Review a Paper.” The sessions were led by the Editors-in-Chief of GSJ, and during this session, the key points to writing a paper were addressed, from study results to submission. The key points in reviewing papers were also addressed, which gave the potential authors great insight into the process. We were very excited to share these sessions with the AOSpine community, and based on the success of these sessions, we will be continuing and expanding this programming at next year's Global Spine Congress in Milan. GSJ also presented its annual best paper and best reviewer awards at the GSC closing ceremony. All of the winners received a certificate along with a cash prize. GSJ would like to congratulate the winners. The Best Clinical Paper Award went to “A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Uninstrumented Posterolateral Fusion in the Degenerative Lumbar Spine” by Kourosh Jalalpour, Pavel Neumann, Christer Johansson, Rune Hedlund. The Best Basic Science Award went to “Annulus Fibrosus Can Strip Hyaline Cartilage End Plate from Subchondral Bone: A Study of the Intervertebral Disk in Tension” by Christian Balkovec, Michael A. Adams, Patricia Dolan, Stuart M. McGill. The Best Reviewer Awards went to John Devine, Andrei Joaquim, Justin Smith, and Christof Birkenmaier. The Best Paper Awards are awarded based on the following criteria: Original Research papers the total number of downloads, the total number of citations, the highest rated papers, the originality of the paper's topic, and paper rankings. All Original Research papers submitted in 2016 will be eligible for the 2016 Best Paper Awards. The Best Reviewer Awards are awarded based on the number of reviews completed during the year as well as the reviewer's average score/ranking. All reviewers who review articles in 2016 will be eligible to receive the 2016 Best Reviewer Award. If you would like to become a reviewer for GSJ, please e-mail Managing Editor Danielle Lieberman at globalspinejournal@aospine.org. Please send her your CV along with your areas of expertise. If you would like to submit a manuscript to GSJ, please go to www.editorialmanager.com/gsj. There you can also find instructions for authors. GSJ looks forward to receiving more excellent papers and reviews from you in the future and would like to thank all of its current authors and reviewers.

Paperless Journals: The Future of the Global Spine Journal.

As technology is expanding and changing, people are moving away from newspapers, books, and paper journals. People are instead opting to use tablets and/or smartphones as their platform for reading books, newspapers, and journals. Global Spine Journal is one of the few journals left that still prints and distributes paper copies of every issue. GSJ is happy to distribute paper copies to those who still enjoy reading a physical journal. We recently surveyed all AOSpine members to ask them if they prefer to read paper journals because we greatly value the opinions of our readership. In the future, for those of you who still prefer to read GSJ on paper, you can opt-in to receive it. GSJ also understands that paperless journals are the future of journals, and we want to keep up with the changing times. We will continue to publish a paper copy of the journal for now, but may consider a paperless situation in the future. We do want to ensure that we offer the best paperless options for our readers to ensure a seamless reading process. We will ensure that our online journal is optimized for all smart devices including phones and tablets. We also are exploring the opportunity to develop a full purpose GSJ app where you can download and read full issues offline. Another important thing that GSJ puts into consideration is the impact that paper journals have on the environment. Printing and distributing paper journals each year takes its toll on the environment and GSJ would like to play its part in reducing our carbon footprint. Again GSJ prides itself on valuing the needs of all of its readers. For those of you who still prefer to read a paper copy of the journal, we are more than happy to provide this to you at this time. For those of you who enjoy reading the journal online, our online journal is optimized for viewing on smart devices. We will of course keep all of our readers updated on any changes we make to the journal.

Technology: Allowing for Journals on the Go.

As we enter into 2016, technology becomes an ever increasingly more important part of our lives. Global Spine Journal is also trying to keep up with the times, as the age of print is starting to come to a close and everything is available digitally. GSJ understands that everyone leads busy lives and people do not always have time to read an entire print journal. However, we also understand that many people still enjoy reading a print journal, so we are also happy to continue to issue print copies of the journal. GSJ now has a podcast series that comes out every 3rd Friday of the month. These podcasts feature interviews between one of our Editors-in-Chief and the author of an article hand-picked by the Editors-in-Chief. These podcasts are available on iTunes here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-spine-journal/id923005213?mt=2 or you can also find all of them on Thieme's website here: https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/podcast/10.1055/s-00000177. These podcasts are available to download for free and you can subscribe to them on iTunes. The podcasts are a great benefit for our readers because it allows them to learn about a particular article on the go—in the car, in the office, at the airport. We are excited to continue this successful podcast series in 2016. Another tool we have for our readers is the GSJ Browser app. This is an app that can be downloaded for tablets and allows readers to download articles to read offline at a later time. Readers can also read full issues of the journal on this app as well. This app is a great way for people to read the journal on the go, especially if they do not want to carry around a paper copy of the journal. We are excited about this browser app and we will be working on improving it even further in 2016. In 2015, GSJ became an Open Access journal which allows for all of our articles to be available online to read without a subscription or fee. It also allows for eFirst articles, which means that articles are available online for people to read soon after they are published and before they are assigned to a specific issue. This is wonderful for those readers who just want to read one or two articles when they have the chance. This also allows for people to start reading new content before it is assigned to an issue, which can take a while. GSJ is excited about moving forward as technology advances and we look forward to creating new and exciting ways to read the journal.

Changes for the Future.

This first issue of 2016 marks the beginning of Volume 6 for Global Spine Journal (GSJ) and this new volume brings in new and exciting changes. As many of you may know, we merged with Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal (EBSJ) in 2015 and became one publication under the name Global Spine Journal. Last year EBSJ was featured as GSJ's special edition, publishing twice a year. However, in 2016 and moving forward, the Editorial Board has made the decision to merge the two journals further. Starting with this issue, most issues of the journal will have a mixture of GSJ and EBSJ content, featuring a special EBSJ section. The decision to eliminate case reports in both GSJ and EBSJ in 2015 meant that both publications had open space. This open space allowed for the unique opportunity to truly combine the two journals. This merge means that the issues will feature a greater diversity of content for our readers and will strengthen the quality of the journal overall. Since its founding in 2011, GSJ has rapidly grown, changed, and expanded each year. We have experienced a huge insurgence of manuscript submissions in the last year. Due to the increase of articles, we are now able to expand the journal further. In 2016, we will be moving from 6 issues per year to 8 issues per year. We are very excited about the opportunity to expand the journal, and we are looking forward to providing our readers with more issues and also allowing our authors to wait a shorter amount of time to be published. Along with the above changes, we will also be merging our Editorial Manager system into one account for the journal. In the past, GSJ and EBSJ had separate accounts, but we have decided to streamline everything into one account. You will be able to choose whether you are submitting to GSJ or EBSJ. All submissions can be submitted to www.editorialmanager.com/gsj. We are so excited about these changes and the journal's future. We would like to thank all of our authors for their excellent and high-quality submissions; without all of you, we wouldn't be here today. We hope you all enjoy our first fully merged issue.

Scientific Pride or Prejudice.

Scientific Pride or Prejudice.

Social Media and the Online World: The New Frontier.

In the past few years, social media has really emerged to become a business tool, rather than just a network for socializing. Social media has had an impact on creating greater visibility for companies and institutions, as well as the ability to reach people all over the globe. Global Spine Journal is adapting and changing with these times. We now have Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn Pages. On these pages we post updates about the journal, interesting new articles that have come out, information about submissions, membership, and much more. We are a global publication and it is important for us to be able to reach out to an audience all around the world. We invite all of you to follow us on social media. We value our global spine community and our readers, and we enjoy having the chance to reach out to all of you and share what is going on with the journal. We can be followed on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/globalspinejournal. Our twitter handle is: @globalspinej. You can find us on LinkedIn by searching for: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) We also have a regular podcast series now with a new podcast coming out every 3rd Friday of the month. These podcasts feature interviews between one of our Editors-in-Chief and the authors of an article that will be published soon, or has just been published. These podcasts are great ways to get more information directly from the authors themselves on their articles, and allow the listener to learn about the articles if they don't have time to read them. You can download the podcasts on iTunes or go to www.thieme.com/gsjpodcast and listen to them on your smart devices. Another new change has been the recent creation of the GSJ browser app. This is an app you can download on any tablet. The articles can be downloaded and then read offline at a later time. This app can be downloaded at: www.thieme.com/gsjreader. We continue to adapt and change with the times, and we look forward to more technological advances. We will continue to keep all of our authors, reviewers, and readers updated as changes are made.

Does Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Have Advantages over Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis?

The author regrets an error in the Conclusion of the above article, published in the Global Spine Journal, Volume 5, Number 2, 2015 (DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1396432). The word “reduction” was inadvertently omitted. The corrected Conclusion appears below. Conclusion The TLIF group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in low back pain and unilateral leg pain compared with the PLF group. However, no differences in improvement in either ODI or PCS were noted between the groups. The postoperative slippage reduction and disk height were significantly greater in the TLIF group, but local disk lordosis, lumbar lordosis, and pelvic parameters were similar between the groups.

Surgery vs Conservative Care for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Surgery Is Appropriate for Progressive Myelopathy.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction.1 The condition presents insidiously and is defined in terms of its clinical symptoms (gait instability, bladder dysfunction, fine finger motor difficulties) and signs (hyperreflexia, weakness, alteration of joint position sense). CSM is caused by dynamic repeated compression of the spinal cord from degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine.2 Proposed mechanisms include axonal stretch-associated injury2 and spinal cord ischemia from compression of larger vessels and impaired microcirculation.3,4 Surgery to decompress and stabilize the spine is often advocated for severe or progressive symptoms, with mixed results. About two-thirds of patients improve with surgery, while surgery does not result in improvement in 15%-30%.5 Over 112,400 cervical spine operations for degenerative spondylosis are performed annually in the US (100% increase over the past decade),6 with CSM accounting for nearly 20% of cervical spine operations in the US.7 Annual hospital charges for CSM surgery exceeds 2 billion dollars per year.6 In addition, CSM is associated with substantial postoperative outpatient expenses (e.g., physician visits, imaging, physical therapy, medications). Recently, the Institute of Medicine designated CSM as one of the top 100 national health research priorities for comparative effectiveness research.8 There is a great need for modern prospective studies with validated outcomes tools to assess the effectiveness of surgical treatments for CSM. Most American cervical spine experts (both orthopaedic and neurological surgeons) believe that there is sufficient clinical equipoise to support a comparative randomized clinical trial (RCT) if the study population is carefully defined.9 Most experts feel that surgery can prevent the progression of spinal cord dysfunction and can, in many cases, improve the symptoms of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. It is unclear, however, what the optimal surgical technique might be (ventral versus dorsal), and in up to 30% of cases the clinical outcome is not satisfactory.5 Furthermore, the complication rate for CSM surgery is high (17% in a recent prospective study),10 particularly in patients over 74 years of age,11 which is a growing segment of the US population.12 Lastly, the 5-year re-operation rate following surgery for CSM is nearly 15%.13

Growth and Change for the Global Spine Journal.

Global Spine Journal is rapidly growing and expanding and with this growth comes change. The journal is really starting to take off. There has been a huge increase in the number of high-quality submissions that GSJ is receiving every single day, which is very exciting. The journal has also grown and changed a lot in the past year. So far in 2015 we have added a new Managing Editor, added two new Deputy Editors, and have incorporated EBSJ as GSJ's special issues. GSJ already filled up all of its issues in 2015 very early on this year, and we are already filling into the beginning of 2016. The Editorial Board is very excited about the journal's expansion and we look forward to the continued increase of submissions and growth for GSJ.

Nothing Hurts Follow-Up like Follow-Up?

Dear EBSJ Readers, First off, some housekeeping notes. Welcome to the new EBSJ, now combined with Global Spine Journal, and our expanded Editor-in-Chief team with Drs. Jeff Wang and Karsten Wiechert. Please welcome on board our newManaging Editor Danielle Lieberman, who has taken on her new role with much appreciated energy. We would like to thank Thea Swanson for her years of faithful service, and we wish her all the best in her new role as novelist. By combining our resources and outstanding global multispecialty reviewers, we will be able to further expand our readership and offer an ever-increasing variety of peer-reviewed scientific articles from around the world. For EBSJ, we will be able to concentrate even more on our popular in-depth formal systematic reviews as a special service to our AOSpine community. As always, we look forward to your topic suggestions and author inquiries. As an introductory topic to this issue, I would like to recommend to you an article by Lurie et al recently published in Spine, titled “Long-Term Outcomes of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Eight-Year Results of the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT).”1 I encourage you to read this article for several reasons:

Global spine congress 2015.

It is my distinct pleasure to welcome you to the 2015 Global Spine Congress in Buenos Aires, Argentina. With its rich cultural heritage, Buenos Aires will host expert surgeons, spine practitioners, clinicians, and researchers in spinal disorders from a global perspective. As the annual meeting of AOSpine, the 2015 Global Spine Congress (GSC) will provide an outstanding forum for the international participants to exchange ideas, research findings, clinical concepts, and treatments for all spinal pathologies. As the GSC continues to grow each year, the truly international participation makes it a unique meeting where colleagues will gather from all parts of the world. This meeting represents the 4th annual meeting, which has gained momentum from the prior meetings in San Francisco, Barcelona, and Hong Kong. As a supplement to the Global Spine Journal, this book contains 514 abstracts selected for this key academic event in the following areas: Back pain (mechanisms and therapy) Arthroplasty—cervical Arthroplasty—lumbar Basic science Biomechanics Nonoperative clinical treatments Novel technologies Navigation Degenerative cervical Degenerative lumbar Deformity—thoracolumbar (Adult) Deformity—thoracolumbar (Adolescent) Deformity—thoracolumbar (Cervical) Diagnostics Epidemiology Infections Medical economics Minimally invasive spine surgery Navigation Spinal tumors Surgery—lumbar degenerative Surgery—deformity Surgical complications Spinal imaging Spinal trauma Trauma—cervical Trauma—thoracolumbar It is also my pleasure to welcome participating international spine societies who will be presenting advanced symposia at the meeting. We are pleased to welcome the following participating societies: The Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) The North American Spine Society (NASS) The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) Brazilian Spine Society (BSS) Brazilian Society of Neurosurgery (SBN) Argentinian Neurosurgical Society (Asociacion Argentina de Neurocirugia) Mexican Association of Spine Surgeons, AC (AMCICO—Asociacion Mexicana de Cirujanos de Columna, A.C.) Asociacion Colombiana de Neurocirugia Sociedad Colombiana de Ortopedia y Traumatologia (SCOT) Argentinian Spine Society I am certain that the oral presentations, symposia, and poster presentations will encourage lively discussions, generate new ideas, and that you will enjoy the interactive and friendly atmosphere in Buenos Aires!

The importance of reviewers.

Since the Global Spine Journal launched in 2011, the journal has continued to grow. As the number of submissions continues to increase, we more than ever rely on the efforts of our reviewers to provide authors with informed, timely peer reviews. As you may know, in 2015 the journal has undergone a number of changes, not least the merger with Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal and the move to Open Access. These changes are designed to further increase the visibility of the journal and we expect that this will stimulate an increasing number of submissions of increasing quality and importance. As a reflection of the wonderful work our reviewers have done in the past for the journal, we have created an editorial board listing as part of the masthead that includes a list of reviewers who have provided reviewer services over the past 2 years. This is a new feature that is making its debut in this issue and will continue on in future issues. We will be constantly updating the list as we add new reviewers to our database. It is important to recognize the reviewers for the hard work that they do and to recognize that they are a part of the Global Spine Journal family. Without their input and expert opinions the journal wouldn't be able to exist, grow, and thrive. I would like to take this opportunity to thank each and every reviewer that has contributed to the Global Spine Journal. We hope for all of our reviewers to join us in helping to continue the journal's success. We are also very excited for the manuscripts featured in this edition of the journal. The review article, “Fundamentals of Clinical Outcomes Assessment for Spinal Disorders: Study Designs, Methodologies, and Analyses” by Patrick Vavken, Anne Kathleen B. Ganal-Antonio, Francis H. Shen, Jens R. Chapman, and Dino Samartzis is part one of a two-part review. The second part will be featured in the next issue. Part one focuses on the Study Designs, Methodologies, and Analyses of Clinical Outcomes Assessment. Part two will focus on Clinical Outcome Instruments and Applications. We are excited to have this two-part review article in the journal and hope that you find it interesting and informative.

The evolution of the global spine journal.

I am so excited about the new year and the combination of the Global Spine Journal (GSJ) and Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal (EBSJ) into a single, international journal formally called the Global Spine Journal (GSJ). This combination allows for the maturation of the official journals of AOSpine International into a single, high-quality scientific academic publication. This will consist of the Global Spine Journal with original research articles, case reports, and review articles. The high-quality outstanding evidence-based reviews, that are typically associated with EBSJ, will be published as special issues of GSJ twice each year. This combined with the new open-access format of the journal, will allow for the appropriate dissemination of the international research and educational missions of AOSpine International. In 2015 we will be improving options for readers to access and download papers via their tablets/phones with a downloadable browser app. We will also be awarding our very first best paper prize to an author who published in 2014. In addition, our ongoing podcast series will continue to highlight key papers published in the journal. You can subscribe to these episodes via iTunes or download direct from the journals homepage. AOSpine continues to represent a truly global membership and academic spine society, with its mission dedicated to education, research, and community-development on a world-wide basis. This journal format will continue to allow the global research in the spine arena to be developed and presented to the world, along with challenging cases and superb review articles that will keep each spine practitioner up to date on the latest developments and ultimately allow for better patient care. I want to thank my two other Chief Editors of this publication, Jens Chapman, MD, and Karsten Wiechert, MD, for all of their efforts in launching this important endeavor. With their guidance, I am confident that this publication will be a leading academic forum for the presentation of spinal research and knowledge, and continue to fulfill the mission of the AOSpine professional medical association. I wish all of our readers and members a Happy New Year and I sincerely look forward to the years to come.

Diskectomy during Pregnancy: Case Report and Review of the Literature-Podcast #4

In this episode,we talk toDr.Michel Kanas, on behalf of his coauthors, about their paper “Diskectomy during Pregnancy: Case Report and Review of the Literature,” published in the Global Spine Journal. Read this article at: https://www.thieme-connect.com/ products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-0034-1387178 Recorded: October 5, 2014 Theme music: Little Chance by Jahzzar http://betterwithmusic.com/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Cervical, Thoracic, and Lumbar Spine in Children: Spinal Incidental Findings in Pediatric Patients-Podcast #3

In this episode, we talk to Dr. John G. DeVine, on behalf of his co-authors, about their paper “Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Cervical, Thoracic, and Lumbar Spine in Children: Spinal Incidental Findings in Pediatric Patients,” published in the Global Spine Journal. Read this article at: https://www.thieme-connect.com/ products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0034-1387179 Recorded: October 7, 2014 Theme music: Little Chance by Jahzzar http://betterwithmusic.com/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

National Trends in Outpatient Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Cervical Spine Disease: Podcast #1

In this episode, we talk to Dr. Samuel K. Cho, on behalf of his co-authors, about their paper “National Trends in Outpatient Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Cervical Spine Disease,” published in the Global Spine Journal. Read this article at: https://www.thieme-connect.com/ products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-0034-1376917 Recorded: August 28, 2014 Theme music: Little Chance by Jahzzar http://betterwithmusic.com/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/