Background Training of spine surgeons may impact the availability of contemporary minimally invasive spinal surgery (MIS) to patients and drive spine surgeons' clinical decision-making when applying minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) to the treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Training requirements and implementation of privileges vary in different parts of the world. The purpose of this study was to analyze the training in relation to practice patterns of surgeons who perform lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery the world over. Methods The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Surgeons were asked the following questions (I) please indicate your training? (II) What type of MISST spinal surgery do you perform? (III) How would you rate your experience in MIS lumbar spinal surgery and what percentage of your practice is MISST? And (IV) wurgeons at a statistically significant level (P=0.11). There were near twice as many orthopaedic surgeons (54.3%) using endoscopic procedures in the lumbar spine as their favorite MISST than neurosurgeons (35.4%; P=0.096). Endoscopic spine surgeons' main sources of knowledge acquisition were (I) learning in small meetings (57.3%), (II) attending workshops (63.1%), and (III) national and international conferences (59.8%). Conclusions The majority of spine surgeons reported more than half of their cases employing MISST at a high skill level.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/acetylcysteine.html  Very few MISST surgeons are fellowship trained but attend workshops and various meetings suggesting that many of them are self-thought. Orthopaedic surgeons were more likely to implement endoscopic spinal surgery into the routine clinical practice. As endoscopic spine surgery gains more traction and patient demand, minimal adequate training will be part of the ongoing debate. 2020 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.Background The purpose of this study was to analyze the training in relation to practice patterns of surgeons in Asia who perform lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery in comparison to surgeons the world over. The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons. Methods Pearson Chi-Square measures, Kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances of responses in relation to surgeons' training using statistical package SPSS Version 25.0. Results A total of 430 surgeons accessed the survey. The completion rate was 67.4%. Analyzing the responses of 292 surveys submitted by 97 neurosurgeons (33.2%), 161 orthopaedic surgeons (55.1%), and 34 surgeons of other postgraduate training (11.6%) showed that only 14.0% (41/292) of surgeons had completed a fellowship. Ninety-one of the 292 respondents were from Asian countries/regions. A statistically significantly higher percentage of Asian surgeons (96.7%) compared to non-Asian surgeons (81.6%) indicated that they perform modern minimally invasive (MIS) and endoscopic spinal (ES) surgery (P=0.001). Spinal endoscopy was employed by 70.3% of Asian versus 55.2% of non-Asian surgeons (P=0.015). Endoscopic decompression techniques requiring advanced training was employed nearly twice as high by the Asian surgeons than by non-Asian. Conclusions Training requirements for MIS and ES surgery and implementation of privileges vary in different parts of the world. While industry-sponsored weekend cadaver workshops have remained the mainstay of training aspiring endoscopic spinal surgeons in North America and Europe leaving many of them to become autodidacts. 2020 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.Background Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) and endoscopic spine surgery have continually evolving indications in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Endoscopic spine surgery entails treatment of disc disease, stenosis, spondylolisthesis, radiculopathy, and deformity. MISS involves complex motor skills in regions of variable anatomy. Simulator use has been proposed to aid in training and skill retention, preoperative planning, and intraoperative use. Methods A systematic review of five databases was performed for publications pertaining to the use of virtual (VR), augmented (AR), and mixed (MR) reality in MISS and spinal endoscopic surgery. Qualitative data analysis was undertaken with focus of study design, quality, and reported outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI) score and level of evidence (LoE) by a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) level for simulation in medicine. Results Thirty-eight studies were retlidity in training scenarios, and patient derived outcome measures in clinical studies are required to further advance the field. 2020 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.Background Traditionally trained spine surgeons may want to transition from open spinal surgeries to endoscopic decompressions. The aspiring endoscopic spine surgeon may have to overcome multiple hurdles to master a learning curve without readily available training. Replacing traditional time-proven open spinal surgeries with endoscopic decompression may put the surgeons' reputation at risk and have an additional negative impact on his or her practice due to reduced revenue. The authors report on the utility of the mentor- and proctorship concepts to facilitate the transition from traditional open to endoscopic outpatient spine surgeries. Methods The study population (learning curve groups) was provided by two traditionally trained "apprentice" surgeons who have been in practice for 12 and 28 years, respectively. They trained with the remaining two authors under mentorship and proctorship arrangements. A VAS and Macnab outcomes analysis was performed by one surgeon laminectomy versus endoscopy in relationshiprior to open laminectomy but may ultimately improve to equivalent levels. 2020 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.Background The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of endoscopic cervical spinal surgery with anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Methods A total of forty-six CSM patients who were admitted to the Medical School of Chinese PLA and treated with endoscopic spine surgery or ACDF from January 2015 to June 2017 were collected. The patients were divided into the spinal endoscopy group and the ACDF group, according to the operation methods. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss and hospitalization stay of the two groups were recorded and compared. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score before operation, three months, and one year after operation were recorded for intra-group and inter-group comparison. The improvement rates of JOA were compared between the two groups to evaluate the clinical efficacy. Results There were twenty-two cases in the spinal endoscopy group and twenty-four cases in the ACDF group. The mean operation lasting time, intraoperative blood loss and hospitalization stay in the spinal endoscopy group were significantly lower than those in the ACDF group (P0.