Characterizing Negative Online Reviews of Spine Surgeons.

DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: Characterize negative reviews of spine surgeons in the United States. SUMMARY: Physician rating websites significantly influence the selection of doctors by other patients. Negative experiences are impacted by various factors, both clinical and nonclinical, geography, and practice structure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and categorize negative reviews of spine surgeons in the United States, with a focus on surgical versus nonsurgical reviewers. METHODS: Spine surgeons were selected from available online professional society membership directories. A search for reviews was performed on Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, and RateMDs.com for the past 10 years. Free response reviews were coded by complaint, and qualitative analysis was performed. χ 2 and Fisher exact tests were used to compare categorical variables, and multiple comparisons were adjusted with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. A binary logistic regression model was performed for the top three most mentioned nonclinical and clinical complaint labels. A P -value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 16,695 online reviews were evaluated, including 1690 one-star reviews (10.1%). Among one-star reviews, 64.7% were written by nonsurgical patients and 35.3% by surgical patients. Nonclinical and clinical comments constituted 54.9% and 45.1% of reviews, respectively. Surgeons in the South had more "bedside manner" comments (43.3%, P <0.0001), while Northeast surgeons had more "poor surgical outcome" remarks compared with all other geographic regions (14.4%, P <0.001). Practicing in the South and Northeast were independent predictors of having complaints about "bedside manner" and "poor surgical outcome," respectively. CONCLUSION: Most one-star reviews of spine surgeons were attributed to nonsurgical patients, who tended to be unsatisfied with nonclinical factors, especially "bedside manner." However, there was substantial geographic variation. These results suggest that spine surgeons could benefit from focusing on nonclinical factors (bedside manner), especially among nonoperative patients, and that regional nuances should be considered in delivering spine care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level- 5.

MicroRNA-29a: a novel target for non-operative management of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

PURPOSE: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most common reason for spinal surgery in patients over the age of 65, and there are few effective non-surgical treatments. Therefore, the development of novel treatment or preventative modalities to decrease overall cost and morbidity associated with LSS is an urgent matter. The cause of LSS is multifactorial; however, a significant contributor is ligamentum flavum hypertrophy (LFH) which causes mechanical compression of the cauda equina or nerve roots. We assessed the role of a novel target, microRNA-29a (miR-29a), in LFH and investigated the potential for using miR-29a as a therapeutic means to combat LSS. METHODS: Ligamentum flavum (LF) tissue was collected from patients undergoing decompressive surgery for LSS and assessed for levels of miR-29a and pro-fibrotic protein expression. LF cell cultures were then transfected with either miR-29a over-expressor (agonist) or inhibitor (antagonist). The effects of over-expression and under-expression of miR-29a on expression of pro-fibrotic proteins was assessed. RESULTS: We demonstrated that LF at stenotic levels had a loss of miR-29a expression. This was associated with greater LF tissue thickness and higher mRNA levels of collagen I and III. We also demonstrated that miR29-a plays a direct role in the regulation of collagen gene expression in ligamentum flavum. Specifically, agents that increase miR-29a may attenuate LFH, while those that decrease miR-29a promote fibrosis and LFH. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that miR-29a may potentially be used to treat LFH and provides groundwork to initiate the development of a therapeutic product for LSS.