R. Belayneh1, A. Mesfin2 1Howard University College Of Medicine,Washington, DC, USA 2University Of Rochester School Of Medicine And Dentristry,Orthopaedic Surgery,Rochester, NY, USA
Introduction:
The Internet is a common resource for health and medical information. Previous studies have shown the Internet’s shortcomings in presenting comprehensive information regarding surgical procedures. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a surgical technique that is being increasingly used. To our knowledge, there are no studies evaluating the quality of information available on the Internet regarding LLIF. The purpose of this study is to examine information on the Internet about LLIF and determine the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.
Methods:
The top 35 websites providing information on the “lateral lumbar interbody fusion” from four search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo) were identified. 140 websites were evaluated. Each website was categorized based on authorship (academic, private, medical industry, insurance company, other) and we analyzed: appropriate patient inclusion and exclusion criteria, surgical treatment alternatives, non-surgical treatment alternatives, claimed benefits, complications and risks, industry-sponsored literature, peer-reviewed literature, description and diagram of procedure, direct contact information of the author, and date of last update.
Results:
78 unique websites were identified after excluding duplicate and inaccessible websites. 46.2% of websites were authored by a private medical group, 26.9% by an academic medical group, 5.1% by biomedical industry, 2.6% by an insurance company, and 19.2% by other sources. 68% of websites reported patient inclusion criteria and only 24.4% reported exclusion criteria. Benefits of LLIF were reported in 69.2% of websites and 36% of websites reported potential complications of LLIF. Alternative surgical options were discussed in 50% of websites and non-surgical options were discussed in 7.7% of websites. 21.8% of websites contained references to peer-reviewed literature while 32.1% contained industry-sponsored literature.
Conclusion:
Overall, the quality and completeness of information regarding LLIF on the Internet is poor. The majority (46.2%) of Internet information on LLIF is provided by private medical groups. Only 36% of websites discuss potential complications of LLIF and most of the cited literature (32%) is from the biomedical industry. Spine surgeons and spine societies can assist in improving the quality of the information on the Internet regarding LLIF.