2023
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13060878
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Patient Perceptions of Paramedian Minimally Invasive Spine Skin Incisions

Abstract: Background: In clinical outcome studies, patient input into the factors that drive higher satisfaction with lumbar minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) is rare. The skin incision is often the only visible consequence of surgery that patients can assess. The authors were interested in patients’ opinions about the type of lumbar paramedian minimally invasive spinal (MIS) skin incision employed during MISS and how novel skin incisions could impact patients’ interpretation of the outcome. The authors wanted to… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 28 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, a longer-term follow-up to assess the incidence of delayed infections and patient-reported outcomes might have provided a more comprehensive perspective on the comparative effectiveness as well as the inclusion of higher-risk patient cohorts, such as those undergoing multi-level instrumented spine surgeries or recurrent surgeries. Ultimately, this study focused on wound infection aspects only and not on long-term cosmetic outcomes, an area of potential concern for patients [17]. Moreover, having an independent observer involved in the follow-up assessed might have help mitigate other potential biases.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, a longer-term follow-up to assess the incidence of delayed infections and patient-reported outcomes might have provided a more comprehensive perspective on the comparative effectiveness as well as the inclusion of higher-risk patient cohorts, such as those undergoing multi-level instrumented spine surgeries or recurrent surgeries. Ultimately, this study focused on wound infection aspects only and not on long-term cosmetic outcomes, an area of potential concern for patients [17]. Moreover, having an independent observer involved in the follow-up assessed might have help mitigate other potential biases.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%