Neurosurgery education in Kazakhstan has 55 years of history. The first neurosurgery department was established in 1964 in the city of Almaty, South Kazakhstan (the former capital of Kazakhstan). The department was headed by the pioneer of Kazakhstani neurosurgeons, Prof. Yevgeniya Azarova. A new neurosurgery education system was adopted after a while. To date, 4 medical universities and 1 neurosurgical center in Kazakhstan have a neurosurgery department that prepares around 10 neurosurgeons annually. The country’s populations are currently served by more than 300 neurosurgeons. However, isolated regions lack neurosurgical services and a specialized medical workforce. Urbanization results in inequality of receiving medical care among rural and regional inhabitants.To develop and strengthen the neurosurgery services, the National Center for Neurosurgery was opened in the heart of the country. The center has placed great importance on the development of neurosurgery and neurosurgical education in Kazakhstan. The World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies, European Association of Neurosurgical Societies, Asian Congress of Neurosurgeons, and International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery have held many international meaningful events on neurosurgery at the center. Opened in 2008, the neurosurgery center has prepared 41 neurosurgeons in the residency program. This article seeks to provide readers with an understanding of the state of neurosurgery education in Kazakhstan and its development history.

No abstract

Objective. To analyze distinctions in multidisciplinary approaches with respect to the timing of patients returning to daily physical activity after uncomplicated lumbar microdisectomy and to the readiness of doctors of various specialties to work according consensus guidelines.Material and Methods. A written questionnaire survey of 60 specialists (20 neurosurgeons, 28 neurologists and 12 rehabilitologists) involved in the management of patients during the first six months after uncomplicated lumbar microdisectomy was conducted. The questionnaire included 12 questions with several answer options on the timing of returning to daily physical activity, and on the need to provide patients with written recommendations on limitations in motion regimen, physical work, sexual activity, and bracing.Results. Significant dissonance both between doctors of the same specialty and of different specialties was demonstrated in the tactics of postoperative management of patients regarding the recommended terms for returning to daily activity. All respondents found it useful to create unified written recommendations on the motion regime, 90 % of specialists are ready to use the proposed recommendations after some modification. There was a slight increase in the recommended timing for return to daily physical activity compared with the recommendations of doctors in other countries.Conclusion. The demonstrated interdisciplinary differences in the treatment, rehabilitation and timing of physical activity restriction for patients after lumbar microdisectomy require unification of the tactics of postoperative management.

No abstract

No abstract