Percutaneous spinal endoscopy is used for the treatment of disorders of the lumbar spine, as it has several advantages over traditional surgical methods. The performance of percutaneous spinal endoscopy is not possible without applying anesthesia methods. Two types (local and general) of anesthesia are used for percutaneous spinal endoscopy. Both, local and general anesthesia approaches contribute to safety in surgical procedures. Although it is believed that the method of local anesthesia has more benefits over general anesthesia, such as lowering the risk of postoperative neurological complications in a patient, the literature on the topic is inconclusive. The study aims to perform a comparative analysis of the two anesthesia methods using a prospective case-control design. Patients were divided into two groups: those who received local anesthesia (LA) (20 patients), and those who underwent general anesthesia (GA) (20 patients). As a result of the study, 40% of the patients experienced moderate pain and 5% of the patients experienced excruciating pain intraoperatively in the LA group. Although Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores improved more rapidly in LA group, at the 12-month check-up point there was no significant difference between cases and controls. Nevertheless, there were postoperative complications such as nerve root injury in 10% of the patients; nausea, vomiting, dizziness, drowsiness in 15% of the patients in the GA group, and an insignificant or no such complications in patients of the LA group. The present study demonstrates that LA contributes to more positive short-term outcomes for patients as it facilitates nerve root damage prevention, and has no postoperative side effects on patients' well being.

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has many advantages over traditional open surgical procedures that can be conducted for the therapy of different diseases of the spine. MISS provide many prospective advantages such as, for example, small incisions, less damage to soft tissues, early activation of patients, and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. The aim of the study was to evaluate institutional experience with Dumbbell tumors and metastatic lesions of the lumbar spine and compare it with traditional open surgical resection of this type of tumors. Fourteen patients underwent the surgery with minimally invasive posterolateral approach in experimental group, and 10 patients of the control group were operated using the traditional open surgery procedure at the Department of spinal neurosurgery and pathology of peripheral nervous system of JSC “National Center for Neurosurgery.” The intraoperative neuro monitoring system (ISIS IOM System Compact, Inomed, Germany) was used in both groups. Sensory and motor evoked potentials were intraoperatively recorded. The present study was approved by the local Ethics Committee of the National Center for Neurosurgery. Patients signed informed consent before the surgical procedure. The experimental group included 14 patients, that underwent the surgery during the period from January 2020 till March 2021. And the control group included 10 patients that was operated from January 2018 to December 2019. The results of the treatment in both groups were assessed according to the generally accepted visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry scales before, on the third day, and 3 months after the surgery. In experimental group, average reduction of the pain syndrome of 3.36 points (from 3 to 0 points) was observed in patients postoperatively according to the VAS 3 days, and of 4.0 points (from 2 to 0 points) 3 months after surgical procedures. Improvement by 23.86% (36–16%) was also observed using the Oswestry Disease Index (ODI) 3 days after the surgery, and then reduced to 21.00% (16–34%) in average in 3 months. All patients were revived 3 h after transfer to the specialist department. The average stay in the hospital was 6.5 (9–4) days in both groups. In control group, average reduction of the pain syndrome of 2.60 points (from 4 to 1 points) was observed postoperatively according to the VAS 3 days after the operation, and of 3.9 points (from 2 to 0 points) 3 months after the surgery. The ODI of patients was also improved by an average of 35.40% (50–20%) 3 days after the surgical procedure, and reduced to 24.20% (16–32%) in average 3 months after the surgery.

Aims: to study the factors constraining the introduction of new medical technologies in the health care system of Kazakhstan, and to find ways of improving innovation activity in Kazakhstan. Methods and Material: Prospective review of online poll of health workers about development of innovations in sector of health care of the Republic of Kazakhstan is submitted. We made questionnaire for medical experts. Results of poll were analyzed with use of the statistical SPSS 16 program. In the analysis we used descriptive statistics, the factor analysis, correlation and the multidimensional dispersive analysis. Results: It was found that in the majority of cases (62.4%), innovations were borrowed (imported from abroad), and they have mostly (63.3%) been introduced into clinical medicine by health care practitioners (66.9%), while the lowest percentage of innovative activity in the country (22.8%) among the experts having scientific and academic degrees. Conclusions:The factor analysis or principal components analysis suggests that the main reasons for the low innovation activity in the Republic of Kazakhstan is a lack of awareness of experts about the latest achievements of science, lack of trained personnel and insufficient target financing of innovation in health care. As development of innovations depends on activity of that professional category of the scientific researchers participating in creation of new drugs, methods of treatment and diagnostics of patients it is necessary to attract actively this professional category to innovative activity in health care.

No abstract