The Role of MI Spine Surgery in Global Health: A Development Critique
The rapid evolution of less disruptive spinal surgery during the last two decades has been driven by revolutionary technical advances, demonstrable improvements in outcome, and reductions in complications compared with open procedures. The benefits to patients around the world and in marginalized populations have been documented. These new technologies and techniques can be resource-intensive and are typically beyond the budgets of the ministries of health of nations in the Global South. However, the benefits to patients, particularly lower infection rates and more rapid return to activities of daily living, have the capacity to provide more value and economic advantages to these underserved populations.
The patient benefits offered by less disruptive spinal surgery could be translated to an increasing number of patients around the world in accordance with the principles of the Global Surgery 2030 initiative. To date, many of the applications of these novel procedures have been offered through industrial foundations or nongovernmental organizations, either as donations of equipment or as sponsored, episodic “missions” comprised of surgical teams from the Global North. To our knowledge, this chapter represents the first attempt in the spinal surgery literature to discuss the possibilities and pitfalls of these well-intentioned interventions through a biosocial approach and to apply the established best practice criteria from the field of Global Development to the specific case of MI Spinal surgery in the Global South.
KeywordsGlobal health Global North/Global South Development Best practice Surgery Critique
- 4.Kim, JY. Opening address to the inaugural “The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery” meeting. The World Bank. Jan 17, 2014. Boston, MA. http://www.globalsurgery.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Jim-Kim-Global-Surgery-Transcribed.pdf. Accessed 27 June 2017.
- 7.Naidoo S. Women’s occupational health working in small-scale agriculture in South Africa. (2011 Utrecht University Repository) (Dissertation), Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
- 26.Library of Congress—Federal Research Division. Country Profile: Kenya. 1–6-2007. https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/cs/profiles/Kenya.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2017.
- 27.WHO Scientific Group on the Burden of Musculoskeletal Conditions of the Start of the New Millenium. The burden of musculoskeletal conditions at the start of the new milleniunm. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2003;919:1–218.Google Scholar
- 28.World Health Organization (WHO). Global Health Observatory (GHO). 2012. Accessed 8 Oct 2014.Google Scholar
- 35.Desai V, Potter RB, editors. Doing development research. London: Sage Publications; 2006.Google Scholar
- 36.Hanna B, Kleinman A. Unpacking global health: theory and critique. In: Farmer P, Kim JY, Kleinman A, Basilico M, editors. Reimaging global health: an introduction. Berkley/Los Angeles: University of California Press; 2013. p. 15–32.Google Scholar
- 41.Farmer P, Kleinman A, Kim J, Basilico M. Reimagining global health: an introduction. California: University of California Press; 2013.Google Scholar
- 44.WHO. Guidelines for health care equipment donations. 2000. http://www.who.int/medical_devices/publications/en/Donation_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed 27 June 2017.
- 49.Isaacs RE, Hyde J, Goodrich JA, Rodgers WB, Phillips FM. A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: perioperative outcomes and complications. Spine. 2010;35:S322–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Lucio JC, VanConia RB, DeLuzio KJ, Lehmen JA, Rodgers JA, Rodgers WB. Economics of less invasive spinal surgery: an analysis of hospital cost differences between open and minimally invasive instrumented spinal fusion procedures during the perioperative period. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2012;5:65–74.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar