Spine surgeons have more tools than ever. Robotics, navigation, wearables, motion-preserving implants, biologics and increasingly sophisticated outcome measures are reshaping nearly every stage of care, from deciding who should have surgery to tracking how well patients recover.
For Ilyas Aleem, MD, a spine surgeon and clinical associate professor at the Ann Arbor-based University of Michigan, that abundance creates a problem of its own.
The question is no longer whether innovation is happening. It is how quickly surgeons should trust it. Dr. Aleem said the volume of new technologies can make it difficult for physicians to evaluate every option with the same rigor. Surgeons may encounter promising early data, pressure from vendors and techniques that spread rapidly before long-term outcomes are fully understood.
His answer is straightforward: Surgeons have to remember that they are scientists. That means avoiding two equally problematic instincts: adopting something simply because it is new and rejecting it simply because it is unfamiliar.
The risk at both ends of innovation
Every rapidly changing field has early adopters. Some surgeons are willing to change their practice based on preliminary evidence, betting that the benefits will eventually hold up.
Dr. Aleem sees value in that willingness to innovate. He also sees risk.
“There’s always the early adopters that are relatively quick to jump onto something when there’s very preliminary data,” he said. “I think that can sometimes be somewhat dangerous.”
The opposite problem is just as real. A surgeon who has successfully performed the same operation for 15 or 20 years may continue doing it even after newer technology makes part of the procedure safer or more effective. The right point between those extremes is not fixed.
“For any significant shift in practice, it’s absolutely imperative to look at the science, look at the data and decide for oneself whether the quality of the data and the outcomes are strong enough that it would persuade a physician from shifting their practice,” Dr. Aleem said.
That responsibility becomes more difficult when innovation arrives faster than any individual surgeon can reasonably absorb it. A surgeon may leave training comfortable with one technique and enter practice surrounded by new implants, competing technologies and companies making arguments for why their product should change the way care is delivered.
The burden is still on the physician to separate possibility from proof.
Five years is not always the right standard
Dr. Aleem does not believe every technology should face the same evidence threshold. What matters is what the technology claims to improve.
A tool designed to make an intraoperative step more efficient or precise may not require five years of follow-up to determine whether it delivers that immediate benefit. An implant intended to remain in a patient for decades is different.
For fusion technologies, surgeons may need longer-term evidence to evaluate pseudarthrosis, screw loosening and whether a durable fusion was achieved. Disc arthroplasty raises its own longer-term questions, including implant loosening and heterotopic ossification.
The evidence window should expand with the risk and durability of the claim.
Just as important as the length of follow-up, Dr. Aleem said, is the quality of the study underneath it. How were the data collected? How were outcomes measured? How many patients were lost to follow-up? How was missing information handled? Was the analysis rigorous enough to support the conclusion?
A longer study does not automatically make a stronger study.
“I don’t think we can say that there should be a specific standard of evidence for all technologies,” Dr. Aleem said. “What’s more important is actually the methodology that’s being used.”
That distinction is especially important in spine surgery, where a technology can reach the operating room long before the field has decades of outcomes to evaluate. Waiting for perfect evidence can deny patients useful innovation. Moving before the evidence is mature can expose them to risks that only become apparent later.
The surgeon has to know which question the available evidence can actually answer.
Training surgeons to ask a different first question
Dr. Aleem believes that judgment has to be developed during training. At Michigan, he emphasizes critical appraisal with residents: understanding research methodology, questioning how conclusions were reached and looking beyond whether a study simply reported a positive result.
The first question, he said, should not be whether a technology is exciting. It should be what problem it is trying to solve.
Evidence-based medicine begins with the patient. The surgeon identifies the clinical problem, asks a focused question, examines the available evidence and weighs it alongside expert judgment and the patient’s preferences. Then the decision returns to the patient.
That habit becomes particularly important after training, when surgeons are no longer evaluating new technology primarily in an academic setting. They are evaluating it while running clinics, operating, interacting with vendors and deciding whether something new deserves to replace a technique they already know works.
Dr. Aleem sees mentorship and scientific meetings as important counterweights. They give surgeons opportunities to compare emerging research with the experience of colleagues and see data that may not yet have filtered into routine practice.
But no conference or mentor can make the final decision for them. A technology does not become evidence because it is popular. And an established operation does not remain the best choice simply because it is familiar.
Cervical spine may be the next test
Dr. Aleem is watching that tension closely in cervical spine surgery. Navigation and robotics have been adopted more slowly in the cervical spine than in lumbar surgery, but he sees significant potential as those systems improve.
Motion preservation is another area he expects to evolve. Patients increasingly want to preserve mobility, return to work and function sooner and reduce the burden of recovery. Those expectations are pushing surgeons to examine where motion-preserving procedures belong and which patients may benefit.
But greater patient demand does not lower the evidentiary bar. It makes good evidence more important.
Indications have to be tested. Outcomes have to be measured. New technology has to prove that it solves a meaningful clinical problem rather than simply offering another way to perform an operation. That is the discipline Dr. Aleem believes spine surgery needs as the pace of innovation accelerates.
The field does not need surgeons who reject every new idea until decades of data exist. It also does not need surgeons who confuse novelty with progress.
It needs physicians willing to remain curious without surrendering skepticism. Spine surgeons are trained to operate. Dr. Aleem’s argument is that they also have to keep thinking like scientists long after training ends.
At the Becker’s 32nd Annual Meeting: The Business and Operations of ASCs, taking place October 29-31 in Chicago, ASC leaders, surgeons and healthcare executives will explore strategies to drive growth, enhance operational performance, navigate reimbursement challenges and prepare for the future of ambulatory surgery. Apply for complimentary registration now.
