Objective: This study aims to assess global trends in the use of open surgery versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for the treatment of single-level L4–5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Methods: A cross-sectional online survey issued by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative was conducted among AO Spine members between July and September 2023. Participants were presented with 3 clinical cases of L4–5 grade 1 DLS, each with varying degrees of stenosis and instability. The survey captured surgeon demographics and preferences for open versus MIS approaches. Statistical analysis, including chi-square tests and logistic regression, was performed to explore associations between surgical choices and surgeon demographics. Results: A total of 943 surgeons responded, with 479 completing the survey. Open surgery was the preferred approach in all 3 cases (58.8%, 57.3%, and 42.4%, respectively), particularly in cases involving central and bilateral foraminal stenosis. MIS was the second most common choice, particularly for unilateral foraminal stenosis with mild instability (38.8%). Surgeons’ preferences varied significantly by region, age, and fellowship training, with younger and fellowship-trained surgeons more likely to prefer MIS. Conclusion The study highlights the continued predominance of open surgery for DLS, especially in complex cases, despite the growing acceptance of MIS. Significant regional and demographic variations in surgical preferences suggest the need for tailored guidelines and standardized training protocols to optimize patient outcomes. Future research should focus on the long-term efficacy of these approaches and the impact of evolving technologies on surgical decision-making.

Objective: This study aims to assess global trends in the use of open surgery versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for the treatment of single-level L4–5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Methods: A cross-sectional online survey issued by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative was conducted among AO Spine members between July and September 2023. Participants were presented with 3 clinical cases of L4–5 grade 1 DLS, each with varying degrees of stenosis and instability. The survey captured surgeon demographics and preferences for open versus MIS approaches. Statistical analysis, including chi-square tests and logistic regression, was performed to explore associations between surgical choices and surgeon demographics. Results: A total of 943 surgeons responded, with 479 completing the survey. Open surgery was the preferred approach in all 3 cases (58.8%, 57.3%, and 42.4%, respectively), particularly in cases involving central and bilateral foraminal stenosis. MIS was the second most common choice, particularly for unilateral foraminal stenosis with mild instability (38.8%). Surgeons’ preferences varied significantly by region, age, and fellowship training, with younger and fellowship-trained surgeons more likely to prefer MIS. Conclusion The study highlights the continued predominance of open surgery for DLS, especially in complex cases, despite the growing acceptance of MIS. Significant regional and demographic variations in surgical preferences suggest the need for tailored guidelines and standardized training protocols to optimize patient outcomes. Future research should focus on the long-term efficacy of these approaches and the impact of evolving technologies on surgical decision-making.

Objective: This study aims to assess global trends in the use of open surgery versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for the treatment of single-level L4–5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Methods: A cross-sectional online survey issued by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative was conducted among AO Spine members between July and September 2023. Participants were presented with 3 clinical cases of L4–5 grade 1 DLS, each with varying degrees of stenosis and instability. The survey captured surgeon demographics and preferences for open versus MIS approaches. Statistical analysis, including chi-square tests and logistic regression, was performed to explore associations between surgical choices and surgeon demographics. Results: A total of 943 surgeons responded, with 479 completing the survey. Open surgery was the preferred approach in all 3 cases (58.8%, 57.3%, and 42.4%, respectively), particularly in cases involving central and bilateral foraminal stenosis. MIS was the second most common choice, particularly for unilateral foraminal stenosis with mild instability (38.8%). Surgeons’ preferences varied significantly by region, age, and fellowship training, with younger and fellowship-trained surgeons more likely to prefer MIS. Conclusion The study highlights the continued predominance of open surgery for DLS, especially in complex cases, despite the growing acceptance of MIS. Significant regional and demographic variations in surgical preferences suggest the need for tailored guidelines and standardized training protocols to optimize patient outcomes. Future research should focus on the long-term efficacy of these approaches and the impact of evolving technologies on surgical decision-making.

Objective: This study aims to assess global trends in the use of open surgery versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for the treatment of single-level L4–5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Methods: A cross-sectional online survey issued by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative was conducted among AO Spine members between July and September 2023. Participants were presented with 3 clinical cases of L4–5 grade 1 DLS, each with varying degrees of stenosis and instability. The survey captured surgeon demographics and preferences for open versus MIS approaches. Statistical analysis, including chi-square tests and logistic regression, was performed to explore associations between surgical choices and surgeon demographics. Results: A total of 943 surgeons responded, with 479 completing the survey. Open surgery was the preferred approach in all 3 cases (58.8%, 57.3%, and 42.4%, respectively), particularly in cases involving central and bilateral foraminal stenosis. MIS was the second most common choice, particularly for unilateral foraminal stenosis with mild instability (38.8%). Surgeons’ preferences varied significantly by region, age, and fellowship training, with younger and fellowship-trained surgeons more likely to prefer MIS. Conclusion The study highlights the continued predominance of open surgery for DLS, especially in complex cases, despite the growing acceptance of MIS. Significant regional and demographic variations in surgical preferences suggest the need for tailored guidelines and standardized training protocols to optimize patient outcomes. Future research should focus on the long-term efficacy of these approaches and the impact of evolving technologies on surgical decision-making.

Objective: This study aims to assess global trends in the use of open surgery versus minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for the treatment of single-level L4–5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Methods: A cross-sectional online survey issued by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Degenerative was conducted among AO Spine members between July and September 2023. Participants were presented with 3 clinical cases of L4–5 grade 1 DLS, each with varying degrees of stenosis and instability. The survey captured surgeon demographics and preferences for open versus MIS approaches. Statistical analysis, including chi-square tests and logistic regression, was performed to explore associations between surgical choices and surgeon demographics. Results: A total of 943 surgeons responded, with 479 completing the survey. Open surgery was the preferred approach in all 3 cases (58.8%, 57.3%, and 42.4%, respectively), particularly in cases involving central and bilateral foraminal stenosis. MIS was the second most common choice, particularly for unilateral foraminal stenosis with mild instability (38.8%). Surgeons’ preferences varied significantly by region, age, and fellowship training, with younger and fellowship-trained surgeons more likely to prefer MIS. Conclusion The study highlights the continued predominance of open surgery for DLS, especially in complex cases, despite the growing acceptance of MIS. Significant regional and demographic variations in surgical preferences suggest the need for tailored guidelines and standardized training protocols to optimize patient outcomes. Future research should focus on the long-term efficacy of these approaches and the impact of evolving technologies on surgical decision-making.

Objective: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.

Objective: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.

Objective: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.

Objective: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.

Objective: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.