Editorial Type: REVIEW ARTICLE
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Nov 2025

Spine Surgery in Space

,
,
,
,
,
, and
Article Category: Review Article
Page Range: 1000 – 1007
DOI: 10.3357/AMHP.6637.2025
Save
Download PDF

INTRODUCTION: Prolonged exposure to microgravity alters spinal biomechanics, increases disc herniation risk, and complicates perioperative care. With commercial and deep-space missions on the horizon, the need for in-orbit surgical capability has gained prominence as a safeguard for astronaut health.

METHODS: A narrative review of PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar through November 2024 identified human, animal, and in vitro studies addressing spinal physiology, pathology, or surgical feasibility in actual or simulated microgravity. Studies unrelated to the spine or lacking English full text were excluded.

RESULTS: Of 988 records, there were 85 that met inclusion criteria. Across study types, microgravity consistently produced spinal elongation, disc swelling, vertebral bone loss, and muscle atrophy, leading to elevated postflight spinal morbidity. Although no spine operations have been reported in orbit, analog studies describe key intraoperative challenges, including fluid containment, sterility, imaging, anesthesia, and hemodynamic control. Promising countermeasures encompass bisphosphonates, resistive exercise, robot-assisted instrumentation, and teleoperation. These data offer a generalizable framework for perioperative planning during long-duration missions.

DISCUSSION: Existing evidence clarifies physiological and logistic barriers to operative care. Targeted musculoskeletal countermeasures, coupled with tele-robotic and augmented-reality platforms, provide a realistic pathway to safe spine surgery during future long-duration missions. Further translational research and on-orbit validation are essential before clinical deployment.

Birhiray D, Ghali A, Philipp T, Chilukuri S, Fiedler B, Lawand J, Deveza L. Spine surgery in space. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2025; 96(11):1000–1007.

The pursuit of space exploration exemplifies humanity’s quest for knowledge, driven by the desire to unlock the secrets of the universe and expand our understanding beyond Earth’s confines. Space agencies such as NASA, the European Space Agency, and Roscosmos (the Russian Space Agency) have historically led numerous expeditions into space, ranging from Earth orbits to manned and unmanned missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. These missions have provided crucial insights into the cosmos, the origins of celestial bodies, and the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

A defining characteristic of space travel is microgravity, in which gravitational forces are significantly reduced compared to those on Earth.13 This environment enables weightlessness, leading to profound physiological changes.1 While early studies during the initial stages of space exploration investigated these phenomena, much remains to be discovered about how prolonged exposure to microgravity triggers various adaptations in bone density, muscle mass, cardiovascular function, and fluid distribution.2,4,5

The biomechanical challenges presented by microgravity significantly increase the risk of spinal injuries for astronauts. Factors such as spinal elongation, fluid shifts, and altered muscle function can predispose them to conditions like disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and vertebral fractures, which pose potential threats to mission objectives and crew safety.68 Due to the potential for injury under these conditions, understanding the effects of microgravity on spinal anatomy and biomechanics is crucial for precise preoperative planning. Surgeons must consider how altered gravitational forces might impact surgical outcomes, including spinal stability, implant efficacy, and tissue healing processes.3

In addition to surgical considerations in microgravity, postoperative recovery and rehabilitation strategies must be adapted to account for the impact of microgravity on tissue healing and functional recovery.7,9 Implementing comprehensive monitoring and rehabilitation programs postsurgery is essential to optimize surgical outcomes and reduce the risk of complications during missions.7 Given these complexities, advancing our understanding of spinal health after prolonged exposure to microgravity and developing tailored surgical strategies is critical. Addressing these challenges will enhance the safety and effectiveness of space missions, protecting and improving the health and well-being of astronauts.

With the exponential growth of technological capabilities making space travel more accessible, space exploration is projected to become more frequent in the near future. This narrative review aims to examine the impact of microgravity on spinal health and evaluate current and future strategies for managing spine-related issues during and after space missions.

METHODS

The studies included in this review were identified through comprehensive searches of electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar, and by examining the reference lists of relevant articles. Databases were searched from inception up to November 2024 with all field search terms, including: “spinal surgery and astronauts,” “spaceflight and spine surgery,” “paraspinal muscle alterations and microgravity,” “spine health and microgravity,” and “spaceflight and surgery.” Inclusion criteria encompassed publications (articles, reviews, NASA reports) that specifically addressed spinal physiology or spine surgery in actual or simulated microgravity. We included human studies and relevant animal or in vitro studies that offered insight into human spinal responses to microgravity. Exclusion criteria ruled out works not focused on the spine, spine surgery, or surgery in space (e.g., studies solely on other organ systems or general space medicine topics without a musculoskeletal or surgical context) and articles without available English full text. Relevant references cited in selected publications were reviewed and incorporated when appropriate.

RESULTS

Our search identified 988 records, of which 85 publications met all inclusion criteria and were analyzed qualitatively. No study reported a spine operation performed during spaceflight; all clinical surgical experience remains Earth-based.

Microgravity-Induced Spinal Changes

Across the 32 biomechanical papers, prolonged weightlessness was consistently associated with spinal elongation (astronauts gain ∼3–5 cm in height), intervertebral disc swelling, paraspinal muscle atrophy, and reduced bone density in vertebrae.1012 A large retrospective cohort further documented a 4.3-fold increase in herniated nucleus pulposus among astronauts within the first postflight months compared with terrestrial controls.13 Cephalic fluid redistribution, documented by ultrasound and MRI, straightens lumbar lordosis and adds to disc swelling, reinforcing these structural changes.10,14

Therapeutic Considerations

There were 23 papers which addressed treatment and recovery. Collectively, they show that microgravity impairs wound and bone healing.1517 Multimodal countermeasures, such as peri-mission bisphosphonate therapy,18 targeted nutrition, resistance exercise, and telemetric monitoring, are required to support postoperative recovery. There is a broad consensus that early supervised rehabilitation and continuous physiological surveillance are essential for restoring spinal stability and function.15,19 Several studies recommend cardiovascular support, including graded re-ambulation, lower-body negative pressure, compression garments, and judicious fluid loading, to counter postflight orthostatic intolerance during early mobilization.4,19

Surgical Feasibility and Technology

A total of 22 publications evaluated surgical feasibility. The literature reflects that no actual spine surgeries have been done in space to date, but there is extensive discussion of potential techniques. All cited environmental hurdles include sterility maintenance, free-floating fluids, and restricted workspace.2022 Surgical simulation studies, including animal models on shuttle missions, demonstrate that minor procedures are technically feasible in microgravity (Drudi et al.).22,23 Most authors identified image-guided robotics, augmented-reality navigation, and telemedicine as critical enablers for future space surgeries.21,24,25 The spaceMIRA experiment in 2024 provided the first on-orbit demonstration of Earth-controlled robotic surgical tasks, validating the mechanical feasibility of tele-operation in microgravity.26 Five studies further noted that total intravenous anesthesia and restrained airway management are preferred options to mitigate equipment float and altered pharmacokinetics in weightlessness.27

Together, the literature reveals predictable microgravity-induced spine degeneration, highlights targeted countermeasures for postoperative recovery, and suggests that emerging imaging and robotic systems offer a plausible pathway toward safe spine surgery during future long-duration missions.

DISCUSSION

Impact of Microgravity on Spine Health

The impact of microgravity on the musculoskeletal system, specifically the spine, is essential for mitigating the adverse effects of space travel on astronaut health and operational efficiency.28 In microgravity, the absence of Earth’s gravitational pull results in diminished axial loading on the spinal intervertebral discs, allowing these discs to expand and contributing to increased spinal length.2931 MRI studies have shown that astronauts can experience spinal elongation of up to 5 cm following prolonged spaceflights.6 This elongation, which leads to a straightening of the natural spinal curvature, is thought to be driven by changes in fluid distribution within the discs, tissue hydration shifts, and microgravity-induced adaptations in spinal biomechanics.32 Furthermore, microgravity affects the structure and function of intervertebral discs. The reduction in gravitational forces facilitates disc hydration shifts and swelling, resulting in alterations in disc height and mechanical properties.10 Variations in disc metabolism and nutrient exchange have also been speculated to exacerbate disc degeneration, potentially increasing susceptibility to herniation and degenerative disc disease.33,34

CT studies have demonstrated persistent decreases in bone mineral density, paraspinal muscle cross-sectional area, and muscle density in astronauts, even after a year of readaptation to Earth’s gravity.11 This decline was corroborated by Bailey et al., who found reduced flexion-extension range of motion and decreased muscle mass following long-duration spaceflights.12

The lack of normal mechanical loading in microgravity also leads to muscle disuse and atrophy, particularly affecting the paraspinal muscles essential for spinal stabilization and posture maintenance, thus increasing the risk of musculoskeletal injuries.6,35 Concurrently, microgravity disrupts the balance between bone formation and resorption, leading to accelerated bone loss, especially in weight-bearing bones such as the vertebrae. This can result in osteopenia and osteoporosis, conditions characterized by weakened bones and an increased fracture risk. Notably, astronauts often experience significant losses in bone mass while in space, particularly in the hip and spine regions.36 Understanding these microgravity-induced spinal changes is crucial for surgical planning. Surgeons must anticipate that astronauts might present with degenerative changes or injury postflight, and that bone fragility or muscle atrophy could impact surgical stability and healing.

Challenges in Spine Surgery After Extended Time in Space

Performing spine surgery on individuals who have spent extended periods in space presents unique challenges that require innovative solutions and adaptations to current guidelines to ensure safe and effective procedures. These challenges stem from logistical constraints, altered biomechanical behavior, and resource limitations inherent to space missions.6,37

The rigorous planning and stringent scheduling of space missions offer limited windows for medical interventions, necessitating the alignment of surgical procedures with mission timelines, crew availability, and operational constraints.27,38,39 The remote nature of space missions, coupled with potential delays in communication with mission control, exacerbates these logistical difficulties, necessitating a higher degree of autonomous decision-making and the possible reliance on telemedicine support.40

Prolonged exposure to microgravity significantly affects the biomechanical behavior of the spine, resulting in reduced gravitational loading, changes in tissue properties, and shifts in mechanical responses.31,41,42 Additionally, deteriorated bone quality increases the risk of complications such as screw loosening or failure of spinal constructs, complicating surgical care. Surgeons may need to adapt their plans to accommodate altered tissue and intraoperative dynamics.43 To address these complexities, precise instrumentation, advanced imaging techniques, and vigilant monitoring throughout procedures will be crucial in navigating the challenges posed by the absence of gravitational force.40,44,45

Anesthetic management in microgravity presents its own set of challenges. Traditional inhalational anesthesia is problematic in a closed spacecraft environment, as anesthetic gases can diffuse unpredictably and are difficult to scavenge in weightlessness.22 A more promising approach is total intravenous anesthesia,22 which avoids gas leakage issues; however, microgravity-induced fluid shifts and reduced blood volume can alter pharmacokinetics and drug efficacy. Securing the airway for general anesthesia requires restraining both the patient and the equipment to prevent movement and ensure stability. Endotracheal intubation must be performed with the patient and operator securely anchored to prevent the tube from dislodging. Special endotracheal tube holders are necessary to keep the tube in place during surgery. Regional anesthesia (nerve blocks) can mitigate some risks by avoiding intubation and minimizing cardiovascular depression; however, performing these blocks in microgravity is challenging due to the lack of gravitational reference points and the floating of both the patient and the ultrasound needle, which can complicate needle guidance.46

Additionally, microgravity affects intraoperative physiology. Due to the high surface tension of blood, cohesive fluid domes or streams adhere to the wound surface rather than dispersing as free-floating droplets.47 Although these are typically manageable with sponges and suction, causing minimal obstruction in small surgical fields, larger or arterial bleeds produce high-velocity streams that pose a greater challenge in microgravity and require immediate control.47 Altered fluid dynamics in microgravity also compromise drainage systems, as standard drains may clog or fail due to surface tension and capillary action resisting fluid flow, necessitating redesigned drainage systems such as shorter, larger-bore tubing or self-contained drainage units .47 A sealed surgical enclosure has been proposed to further enhance visualization and prevent cabin contamination .47 Hemodynamic regulation is also more precarious as astronauts often have blunted baroreceptor responses and diminished cardiac output after adaptation to microgravity,48 raising concern for hypotension when surgical anesthesia is induced. These anesthetic and physiological challenges underscore that developing spine surgery capability for space is not solely about the surgical technique, but also about ensuring the patient’s homeostasis can be maintained in a radically altered environment.

The constraints imposed by spacecraft, including limited spatial allowance, weight restrictions, and resource availability, pose substantial logistical challenges for conducting spine surgery.43 Surgeons must operate within restricted workspaces with minimal access to equipment and supplies, necessitating continued innovation of compact, lightweight surgical instruments and the optimization of surgical workflows.49,50 Current innovations include the development of an instrument called the spaceMIRA, a microwave-sized device that can mimic human movement using two different robotic arms. In February of 2024, the spaceMIRA successfully remotely simulated several surgical techniques on the International Space Station, representing an advancement in the current standard of surgery in space with implications for future space travel.26 Further development and implementation of streamlined, space-efficient surgical tools and methods will likely be essential to overcoming the spatial and resource constraints in extraterrestrial environments; however, these advancements may be limited in scope due to costs and the limited demand for innovation.51

Therapeutic Considerations for Spine Surgery

To protect astronauts’ bone health during and after space missions, a multidisciplinary approach involving space medicine, biomechanics, and surgical innovation is essential.20,52,53 Ensuring adequate intake of nutrients such as calcium, vitamin D, and proteins is crucial to counteract the bone demineralization and muscle atrophy induced by microgravity.20,54 Nutritional strategies should focus on mitigating these effects. Regular exercise regimens, including resistance training, are also essential for stimulating bone growth and muscle strength, thereby reducing the risks of osteoporosis and muscle atrophy prevalent under microgravity conditions. A study by Leblanc et al. supports the peri-mission administration of alendronate and bisphosphonates to attenuate bone loss in the spine, hip, and pelvis, with significant implications for both preventative and surgical care.18 Additionally, emerging pharmacological agents, such as receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-Β ligand (RANKL) antibodies and proteasome inhibitors, have shown promise in reducing bone resorption and promoting bone formation in microgravity conditions.55 However, alterations in tissue healing processes due to microgravity-induced changes in cellular behavior17,56 and reduced mechanical loading may impede surgical site healing.15,16,57 Minimally invasive surgical approaches, including endoscopic and laparoscopic techniques, are preferred for their reduced tissue trauma and enhanced visualization capabilities.45,58 The integration of these methods, alongside advanced robotic technologies, offers effective solutions that improve postoperative outcomes and recovery times, which are critical for astronauts fulfilling mission objectives.40,59,60

Beyond musculoskeletal rehabilitation, clinicians must manage the broader physiological changes associated with spaceflight during the postoperative period. Fluid shifts due to microgravity, such as cephalic fluid redistribution, can contribute to facial edema and potentially increase intracranial pressure.14,61,62 When returning to Earth’s gravity, this can reverse and lead to orthostatic intolerance. There is also evidence that microgravity may alter the endothelial glycocalyx, the protective carbohydrate layer on blood vessels that regulates permeability.63 Disruption of the glycocalyx could exacerbate fluid leakage into tissues and impair vascular function during recovery. As a result, astronauts might experience more tissue edema or difficulties in volume regulation after surgery.

Moreover, long-duration missions lead to cardiovascular deconditioning, characterized by reduced plasma volume, cardiac muscle atrophy, and diminished baroreflexes.48 In the immediate postflight period, astronauts often suffer orthostatic hypotension.4,48 A postoperative patient with such issues is at risk for fainting or inadequate perfusion of the spinal cord when ambulating. Postoperative care protocols should therefore include cardiovascular support, such as gradual reambulation under monitoring, fluid loading, compression garments, or lower-body negative pressure to counteract orthostatic effects.4,48 Close monitoring of hemodynamics, in addition to neurological status, is critical.

Effective postoperative care is vital in managing microgravity-induced alterations in the spine and musculoskeletal system. Rehabilitation programs that focus on muscle strengthening, range-of-motion exercises, and proprioceptive training are essential for promoting spinal stability and functional recovery, while mitigating the risk of musculoskeletal deconditioning in astronauts.64 Continuous monitoring of postoperative outcomes is crucial, as the deconditioned spine and altered physiology may increase the risk of chronic pain, delayed wound healing, and impaired neurological function.15,19

Interventions to enhance tissue repair may include optimizing nutritional intake to ensure adequate protein and vitamin levels, coupled with pharmacological agents that promote collagen synthesis and wound healing.65 Similarly, fluid and blood pressure management, and possibly pharmacological support to protect vascular integrity, are warranted. Employing robust telemedicine support is helpful for effective postoperative recovery management and promptly addressing complications that may arise following space missions.66

Adaptations and Innovations in Spine Surgery for Astronauts in Space

Addressing the challenges of maintaining spinal health in space necessitates the integration of advanced imaging technologies and surgical techniques, including remote surgery, augmented reality, and robotic systems. These innovations are essential to ensure the safety and efficacy of surgical procedures performed on astronauts who may require intervention before returning to Earth. One promising strategy involves using image-guided navigation systems that combine real-time imaging data with precise location tracking to enhance surgical accuracy while minimizing radiation exposure. This is particularly advantageous considering that astronauts are already exposed to elevated baseline levels of radiation, which can exacerbate the residual effects of prolonged space exposure.67

MRI offers high-quality three-dimensional visualization of anatomical structures without the use of ionizing radiation. Despite challenges such as strong static magnetic fields and confined spaces, MRI-compatible robotic systems are being developed to assist with intraoperative MRI. This real-time guidance is crucial for patients whose musculoskeletal systems have been affected by long-duration spaceflight.68 Additionally, intraoperative ultrasound is valuable due to its cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and real-time visualization capabilities. Intraoperative ultrasound is particularly useful for visualizing soft tissues and pathologies during surgery, especially in scenarios involving intradural lesions that microgravity-induced changes may exacerbate.69,70

Augmented reality could aid visualization and navigation during spine surgery by allowing surgeons to view three-dimensional anatomical structures directly while observing the surgical field. This technology improves accuracy and reduces operating time, making it particularly beneficial for addressing anatomical changes resulting from prolonged space habitation.71 This adaptation is particularly relevant for the unique challenges astronauts face after extended missions.72 Robotic-assisted surgery provides enhanced precision and control, which is crucial for patients who have experienced the musculoskeletal impacts of microgravity.73 Robotic systems improve surgical accuracy and dexterity, reduce surgeon fatigue, and can incorporate advanced imaging technologies such as intraoperative CT or fluoroscopy for real-time navigation.21,24,25 Platforms like the da Vinci Surgical System and the Mazor Robotics Renaissance System, which have demonstrated success on Earth, hold promise for adaptation to the unique challenges caused by spaceflight.40

Future Directions and Recommendations for Spine Health

Interdisciplinary cooperation among neurosurgeons, engineers, and space scientists is crucial for refining surgical techniques and technologies tailored to the needs of astronauts following long-duration space missions. Ground-based analogs, such as bed rest studies or innovative analogs like hyper-buoyancy flotation, can provide insights into spinal unloading and reloading mechanisms.74 Continued investigation in this focus informs the development and implementation of effective countermeasures to spinal muscle atrophy and spinal instability during space missions. Evaluating the efficacy of regular axial loading exercises is crucial for maintaining spinal health.53

Technological innovations, including intraoperative image guidance, robotics, and augmented reality, have significantly enhanced spine surgery on Earth but require rigorous validation for application in space. Investment in advanced neurosurgical technologies, such as machine learning, augmented reality, and virtual reality, is pivotal for enhancing diagnostic accuracy, reducing complications, and improving surgical outcomes. Training programs using these technologies can equip surgeons to address the unique challenges of spine surgery on astronauts, thereby enhancing surgical skills and minimizing the risk of complications. Wearable sensors have been proposed as a solution to monitor spinal and muscle activity under microgravity conditions, providing longitudinal data on the efficacy and reliability of interventions in space.75,76 Despite extensive advancement of technology, a more intentional evaluation of its use in a microgravity environment is required to mitigate potential risks.50 Additionally, policies and infrastructure must support the provision of surgical care during and after space missions, ensuring the availability of trained medical personnel, necessary surgical equipment, and telemedicine capabilities for remote guidance and support.22 Addressing these domains will enable policymakers, space agencies, and healthcare providers to advance spine surgery capabilities for astronauts more effectively, ultimately enhancing their health and safety during and after space missions.20

Ethical and Legal Implications of Space Healthcare

Legal frameworks and regulatory standards are pivotal in ensuring patient safety, maintaining medical ethics, and addressing liability issues in space medicine. International space law, including key treaties like the Outer Space Treaty and the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, delineates the principles that govern space activities, emphasizing cooperation, mutual assistance, and shared responsibility for astronaut health and safety.77 However, as surgical interventions in space are contemplated, these regulations will need to evolve to address consent, autonomy, and liability in the off-Earth context.

National space agencies, including NASA, the European Space Agency, and Roscosmos, have formulated specific regulations that govern medical procedures in space.78 These regulations encompass preflight assessments, in-flight care, and postflight monitoring, including medical standards that exist for low Earth orbit spaceflight. There also exists a medical checklist, written in both English and Russian, on the International Space Station for potential standard medical procedures, as well as a standard of care for the process of stabilizing and transporting a crewmember in case of injury or medical emergency.79 As of December 2016, NASA’s Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer integrated a NASA procedural requirement (NPR 8900.1B) based on the framework of medical ethics developed by the Institute of Medicine’s Aerospace Medicine and Medicine in Extreme Environments Committee in an effort to further expand guidelines governing medical ethics and procedures in space.78 While the European medical ethics guidelines have not been publicly announced, agencies are striving to collaborate closely with regulatory authorities and medical experts to ensure adherence to safety and ethical standards during spaceflight.80

Spinal Surgery in Space

While spine surgery in space may be possible in the near future, there remain considerable challenges at present that have been presented by the existing literature. Lajczak et al. highlight several limitations of conventional manual surgical techniques in their review, finding major drawbacks in accuracy, size, and invasiveness of procedures, exposure to radiation, and surgical efficiency.21 These challenges are further amplified in the setting of microgravity during space missions and may limit the application of conventional means to emergency or extremely narrow circumstances.20,81 Robotic surgery could reduce these limitations and may be an effective solution for performing spine surgery in space.21,25

A unique challenge accompanied by using robotics surgery in space derives from communication delays between Earth and the space crew. Although the speed at which information travels may be negligible in low Earth orbit, missions that span beyond this region are subject to latency or communication delays that range from minutes to hours, compromising the performance of telesurgery and telemonitoring.40 The limitations of current technology suggest that long-duration space missions may require flight surgeons to accompany the crew to provide definitive care for injuries that exceed the training and technical capabilities of the crew medical officer, a crewmember without a medical background who has received 60 h of medical training.40,82 Others have proposed artificially intelligent autonomous systems capable of performing a selection of preset surgeries to assist the crew and crew medical officer.51,60,83 Although the literature on the topic of robotics surgery for space applications has emphasized a completely autonomous system with cognitive capabilities for active decision-making,51,60,83 a fully autonomous and cognitive system has not received FDA (Food and Drug Administration) clearance nor, to our knowledge, has been developed.84 Such an ambitious feat is beyond what is capable with today’s technology; however, augmenting the surgical methods to accompany human decision-making through the use of preplanned robotics movements may fill the technological gap until these advanced surgical systems are developed. While patient-specific prerecorded surgeries may be feasible, it would require a perfect overlap of the surgical field in the prerecorded robotics surgery and the surgical field erected during the mission. Moreover, it is possible that with high-precision scans of the affected crewmember and an even more robust virtual simulation system, surgeons may be able to perform surgeries on a virtual copy of the patient before sending the virtual recording to the flight crew, who then prepare the surgical robot and the patient to replay the surgery from space as if it was occurring in real-time. This, of course, would require an extensive and highly delicate calibration cycle to minimize the risk of invading unintended tissue or bone during spine surgery.

The spaceMIRA device represents an advancement in the current status of technology and surgical abilities in space.26 While there were limitations stemming from the signal latency, the spaceMIRA was able to complete several basic surgical tasks. Regarding the future of spinal surgery, a device similar to the spaceMIRA with the additional ability to perform the surgery in augmented reality portrays potential future devices that could be used to perform spinal surgery in space. The spaceMIRA, in this example, would be classified as a remote-controlled robot, in contrast with an on-site-controlled robot that would have to be controlled on the International Space Station.85 Using remote-controlled robots in surgery provides an opportunity for a myriad of different surgeons to perform a multitude of surgeries, including spinal surgeries, based on the needs of the patient in space. Furthermore, robots are currently in use during spine surgery and relocating a similar robotic device to the International Space Station could provide further opportunities and new directions for spinal surgery in space.

Effective spine surgery during and after space travel requires a comprehensive approach to address the physiological changes induced by microgravity. Prolonged exposure significantly affects bone density, muscle mass, and disc health, necessitating targeted interventions upon return to Earth. A holistic strategy that includes rehabilitation, pharmacological support, and surgical solutions is essential for maintaining spinal integrity. Notably, this review identifies novel methodologies, such as teleoperated robotic surgical systems, advanced imaging guidance, and augmented reality navigation, as promising avenues to enable safe spinal surgery beyond Earth. These technologies, alongside rigorous astronaut training and telemedical support, represent new frontiers in surgery and future directions of study that can mitigate the limitations imposed by microgravity. Continued research and innovation are crucial to overcoming these challenges and ensuring the safety and effectiveness of spine surgeries for astronauts. By developing space-adapted surgical techniques and supportive care protocols, we can protect the long-term health of astronauts. As we venture further into space, our commitment to astronauts’ well-being will empower future missions, ensuring that those who lead humanity into the cosmos return intact and thriving.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Financial Disclosure Statement: The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Authors and Affiliations: Dion Birhiray, BS, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, United States; Abdullah Ghali, M.D., Trey Philipp, BS, Srikhar Chilukuri, BS, Benjamin Fiedler, M.D., and Lorenzo Deveza, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Orthopedics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States; and Jad Lawand, BS, University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston, Galveston, TX, United States.

REFERENCES

  • 1.
    Juhl OJ
    ,
    Buettmann EG
    ,
    Friedman MA
    ,
    DeNapoli RC
    ,
    Hoppock GA
    ,
    Donahue HJ.
    Update on the effects of microgravity on the musculoskeletal system. NPJ Microgravity. 2021 Jul 23; 7(
    1
    ):28.
  • 2.
    Iwase S
    ,
    Nishimura N
    ,
    Tanaka K
    ,
    Mano T.
    Effects of microgravity on human physiology
    . In:
    Reynolds RJ
    , editor. Beyond LEO - Human Health Issues for Deep Space Exploration.
    London (UK)
    :
    IntechOpen
    ; 2020.
  • 3.
    Hargens AR
    ,
    Vico L.
    Long-duration bed rest as an analog to microgravity. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2016 Apr 15; 120(
    8
    ):891903.
  • 4.
    Hughson RL
    ,
    Shoemaker JK
    ,
    Blaber AP
    ,
    Arbeille P
    ,
    Greaves DK
    , et al. Cardiovascular regulation during long-duration spaceflights to the International Space Station. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2012 Mar; 112(
    5
    ):71927.
  • 5.
    Afshinnekoo E
    ,
    Scott RT
    ,
    MacKay MJ
    ,
    Pariset E
    ,
    Cekanaviciute E
    , et al. Fundamental biological features of spaceflight: advancing the field to enable deep space exploration. Cell. 2020 Nov 25; 183(
    5
    ):116284.
  • 6.
    Chang DG
    ,
    Healey RM
    ,
    Snyder AJ
    ,
    Sayson JV
    ,
    Macias BR
    , et al. Lumbar spine paraspinal muscle and intervertebral disc height changes in astronauts after long-duration spaceflight on the International Space Station. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Dec 15; 41(
    24
    ):191724.
  • 7.
    Strock N
    ,
    Rivas E
    ,
    Goebel KM.
    The effects of space flight and microgravity exposure on female astronaut health and performance. In: 2023 IEEE Aerospace Conference; 4-11 March 2023; Big Sky, MT, United States. New York: IEEE; 2023:0112.
  • 8.
    Penchev R
    ,
    Scheuring RA
    ,
    Soto AT
    ,
    Miletich DM
    ,
    Kerstman E
    ,
    Cohen SP.
    Back pain in outer space. Anesthesiology. 2021 Sep 1; 135(
    3
    ):38495.
  • 9.
    Winnard A
    ,
    Nasser M
    ,
    Debuse D
    ,
    Stokes M
    ,
    Evetts S
    , et al.
    Systematic review of countermeasures to minimise physiological changes and risk of injury to the lumbopelvic area following long-term microgravity. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2017 Jan; 27(Suppl 1):S514.
  • 10.
    Treffel L
    ,
    Mkhitaryan K
    ,
    Gellee S
    ,
    Gauquelin-Koch G
    ,
    Gharib C
    , et al. Intervertebral disc swelling demonstrated by 3d and water content magnetic resonance analyses after a 3-day dry immersion simulating microgravity. Front Physiol. 2016 Dec 5; 7:605.
  • 11.
    Coulombe JC
    ,
    Johannesdottir F
    ,
    Burkhart KA
    ,
    Brummer H
    ,
    Allaire BT
    ,
    Bouxsein ML.
    Changes in vertebral bone density and paraspinal muscle morphology following spaceflight and 1 year readaptation on Earth. JBMR Plus. 2023 Nov 8; 7(
    12
    ):e10810.
  • 12.
    Bailey JF
    ,
    Nyayapati P
    ,
    Johnson GTA
    ,
    Dziesinski L
    ,
    Scheffler AW
    , et al. Biomechanical changes in the lumbar spine following spaceflight and factors associated with postspaceflight disc herniation. Spine J. 2022 Feb; 22(
    2
    ):197206.
  • 13.
    Johnston SL
    ,
    Campbell MR
    ,
    Scheuring R
    ,
    Feiveson AH.
    Risk of herniated nucleus pulposus among U.S. astronauts. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2010 Jun; 81(
    6
    ):56674.
  • 14.
    Norsk P.
    Adaptation of the cardiovascular system to weightlessness: Surprises, paradoxes and implications for deep space missions. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2020 Mar; 228(
    3
    ):e13434.
  • 15.
    Farahani RM
    ,
    DiPietro LA.
    Microgravity and the implications for wound healing. Int Wound J. 2008 Oct; 5(
    4
    ):55261.
  • 16.
    Gadomski BC
    ,
    McGilvray KC
    ,
    Easley JT
    ,
    Palmer RH
    ,
    Santoni BG
    ,
    Puttlitz CM.
    Partial gravity unloading inhibits bone healing responses in a large animal model. J Biomech. 2014 Sep 22; 47(
    12
    ):283642.
  • 17.
    Zhou Y
    ,
    Lv W
    ,
    Peng X
    ,
    Cheng Y
    ,
    Tu Y
    , et al. Simulated microgravity attenuates skin wound healing by inhibiting dermal fibroblast migration via F-actin/YAP signaling pathway. J Cell Physiol. 2023 Dec; 238(
    12
    ):275164.
  • 18.
    Leblanc A
    ,
    Matsumoto T
    ,
    Jones J
    ,
    Shapiro J
    ,
    Lang T
    , et al. Bisphosphonates as a supplement to exercise to protect bone during long-duration spaceflight. Osteoporos Int. 2013 Jul; 24(
    7
    ):210514.
  • 19.
    Roy-O’Reilly M
    ,
    Mulavara A
    ,
    Williams T.
    A review of alterations to the brain during spaceflight and the potential relevance to crew in long-duration space exploration. NPJ Microgravity. 2021 Feb 16; 7(
    1
    ):5.
  • 20.
    Panesar SS
    ,
    Fernandez-Miranda JC
    ,
    Kliot M
    ,
    Ashkan K.
    Neurosurgery and manned spaceflight. Neurosurgery. 2020 Mar 1; 86(
    3
    ):31724.
  • 21.
    Łajczak P
    ,
    Żerdziński K
    ,
    Jóźwik K
    ,
    Laskowski M
    ,
    Dymek M.
    Enhancing precision and safety in spinal surgery: a comprehensive review of robotic assistance technologies. World Neurosurg. 2024 Nov; 191:10916.
  • 22.
    Drudi L
    ,
    Ball CG
    ,
    Kirkpatrick AW
    ,
    Saary J
    ,
    Grenon SM.
    Surgery in space: where are we at now? Acta Astronaut. 2012; 79:616.
  • 23.
    Campbell MR
    ,
    Williams DR
    ,
    Buckey JC
    ,
    Kirkpatrick AW.
    Animal surgery during spaceflight on the Neurolab Shuttle mission. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2005 Jun; 76(
    6
    ):58993.
  • 24.
    Overley SC
    ,
    Cho SK
    ,
    Mehta AI
    ,
    Arnold PM.
    Navigation and robotics in spinal surgery: where are we now? Neurosurgery. 2017 Mar 1; 80(
    3S
    ):S8699.
  • 25.
    Molliqaj G
    ,
    Paun L
    ,
    Nouri A
    ,
    Girod PP
    ,
    Schaller K
    ,
    Tessitore E.
    Role of robotics in improving surgical outcome in spinal pathologies. World Neurosurg. 2020 Aug; 140:66473.
  • 26.
    Apte P.
    Robotic surgeon makes rounds in orbit. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. July 23, 2024. [Accessed September 30, 2024]. Available from https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/robotic-surgeon-makes-rounds-in-orbit.
  • 27.
    Komorowski M
    ,
    Fleming S
    ,
    Hinkelbein J.
    Anaesthesia in outer space: the ultimate ambulatory setting? Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2016 Dec; 29(
    6
    ):64954.
  • 28.
    Furukawa S
    ,
    Chatani M
    ,
    Higashitani A
    ,
    Higashibata A
    ,
    Kawano F
    , et al. Findings from recent studies by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency examining musculoskeletal atrophy in space and on Earth. NPJ Microgravity. 2021 May 26; 7(
    1
    ):18.
  • 29.
    Nicogossian AE.
    The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project: medical report. Published online January 1, 1977. [Accessed September 27, 2024]. Available from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19770023791.
  • 30.
    Young KS
    ,
    Rajulu S.
    The effects of microgravity on seated height (spinal elongation). Published online January 1, 2011. [Accessed September 27, 2024]. Available from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20110023150.
  • 31.
    Bailey JF
    ,
    Hargens AR
    ,
    Cheng KK
    ,
    Lotz JC.
    Effect of microgravity on the biomechanical properties of lumbar and caudal intervertebral discs in mice. J Biomech. 2014 Sep 22; 47(
    12
    ):29838.
  • 32.
    Nelson ES
    ,
    Mulugeta L
    ,
    Myers JG.
    Microgravity-induced fluid shift and ophthalmic changes. Life (Basel). 2014 Nov 7; 4(
    4
    ):62165.
  • 33.
    Smith K
    ,
    Mercuri J.
    Microgravity and radiation effects on astronaut intervertebral disc health. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021 May; 92(
    5
    ):34252.
  • 34.
    Jin L
    ,
    Feng G
    ,
    Reames DL
    ,
    Shimer AL
    ,
    Shen FH
    ,
    Li X.
    The effects of simulated microgravity on intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine J. 2013 Mar; 13(
    3
    ):23542.
  • 35.
    LeBlanc A
    ,
    Schneider V
    ,
    Shackelford L
    ,
    West S
    ,
    Oganov V
    , et al. Bone mineral and lean tissue loss after long duration space flight. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2000 Dec; 1(
    2
    ):15760.
  • 36.
    Lang T
    ,
    LeBlanc A
    ,
    Evans H
    ,
    Lu Y
    ,
    Genant H
    ,
    Yu A.
    Cortical and trabecular bone mineral loss from the spine and hip in long-duration spaceflight. J Bone Miner Res. 2004 Jun; 19(
    6
    ):100612.
  • 37.
    Sawik B.
    Space mission risk, sustainability and supply chain: review, multi-objective optimization model and practical approach. Sustainability. 2023 Jul 13; 15(
    14
    ):11002.
  • 38.
    Robertson JM
    ,
    Dias RD
    ,
    Gupta A
    ,
    Marshburn T
    ,
    Lipsitz SR
    , et al. Medical event management for future deep space exploration missions to Mars. J Surg Res. 2020 Feb; 246:30514.
  • 39.
    Almand A
    ,
    Ko SY
    ,
    Anderson A
    ,
    Keller RJ
    ,
    Zero M
    , et al. A qualitative investigation of space exploration medical evacuation risks. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2023 Dec 1; 94(
    12
    ):87586.
  • 40.
    Haidegger T
    ,
    Sándor J
    ,
    Benyó Z.
    Surgery in space: the future of robotic telesurgery. Surg Endosc. 2011 Mar; 25(
    3
    ):68190.
  • 41.
    Bailey JF
    ,
    Miller SL
    ,
    Khieu K
    ,
    O’Neill CW
    ,
    Healey RM
    , et al. From the international space station to the clinic: how prolonged unloading may disrupt lumbar spine stability. Spine J. 2018 Jan; 18(
    1
    ):714.
  • 42.
    Chaloulakou S
    ,
    Poulia KA
    ,
    Karayiannis D.
    Physiological alterations in relation to space flight: the role of nutrition. Nutrients. 2022 Nov 19; 14(
    22
    ):4896.
  • 43.
    Rajput S.
    A review of space surgery - what have we achieved, current challenges, and future prospects. Acta Astronautica. 2021 Nov; 188:1824.
  • 44.
    Kirkpatrick AW
    ,
    Campbell MR
    ,
    Novinkov OL
    ,
    Goncharov IB
    ,
    Kovachevich IV.
    Blunt trauma and operative care in microgravity: a review of microgravity physiology and surgical investigations with implications for critical care and operative treatment in space. J Am Coll Surg. 1997 May; 184(
    5
    ):44153.
  • 45.
    Campbell MR
    ,
    Kirkpatrick AW
    ,
    Billica RD
    ,
    Johnston SL
    ,
    Jennings R
    , et al. Endoscopic surgery in weightlessness: the investigation of basic principles for surgery in space. Surg Endosc. 2001 Dec; 15(
    12
    ):14138.
  • 46.
    Kiberd MB
    ,
    Brownbridge R
    ,
    Mackin M
    ,
    Werry D
    ,
    Bird S
    , et al. Feasibility of ultrasound-guided nerve blocks in simulated microgravity: a proof-of-concept study for regional anaesthesia during deep space missions. Br J Anaesth. 2024 Dec; 133(
    6
    ):127683.
  • 47.
    Alexander DJ.
    Trauma and surgical capabilities for space exploration
    . In:
    Gillman LM
    ,
    Widder S
    ,
    Blaivas MD M
    ,
    Karakitsos D
    , editors. Trauma Team Dynamics: A Trauma Crisis Resource Management Manual.
    Berlin (Germany): Springer International Publishing
    ; 2016:25366.
  • 48.
    Gallo C
    ,
    Ridolfi L
    ,
    Scarsoglio S.
    Cardiovascular deconditioning during long-term spaceflight through multiscale modeling. NPJ Microgravity. 2020 Oct 1; 6:27.
  • 49.
    Barrow BE
    ,
    Pantalos GM
    ,
    Roussel TJ.
    Design and evaluation of a multifunctional surgical device for space-based applications. Acta Astronautica. 2020 Oct; 175:11827.
  • 50.
    Pantalone D.
    Surgery in the next space missions. Life (Basel). 2023 Jun 29; 13(
    7
    ):1477.
  • 51.
    Pantalone D
    ,
    Faini GS
    ,
    Cialdai F
    ,
    Sereni E
    ,
    Bacci S
    , et al. Robot-assisted surgery in space: pros and cons. A review from the surgeon’s point of view. NPJ Microgravity. 2021 Dec 21; 7(
    1
    ):56.
  • 52.
    Holt JA
    ,
    Macias BR
    ,
    Schneider SM
    ,
    Watenpaugh DE
    ,
    Lee SMC
    , et al. WISE 2005: aerobic and resistive countermeasures prevent paraspinal muscle deconditioning during 60-day bed rest in women. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2016 May 15; 120(
    10
    ):121522.
  • 53.
    Lazzari ZT
    ,
    Aria KM
    ,
    Menger R.
    Neurosurgery and spinal adaptations in spaceflight: a literature review. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2021 Aug; 207:106755.
  • 54.
    Hargens AR
    ,
    Bhattacharya R
    ,
    Schneider SM.
    Space physiology VI: exercise, artificial gravity, and countermeasure development for prolonged space flight. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 Sep; 113(
    9
    ):218392.
  • 55.
    Baran R
    ,
    Wehland M
    ,
    Schulz H
    ,
    Heer M
    ,
    Infanger M
    ,
    Grimm D.
    Microgravity-related changes in bone density and treatment options: a systematic review. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Aug 3; 23(
    15
    ):8650.
  • 56.
    Bacci S
    ,
    Bani D.
    The epidermis in microgravity and unloading conditions and their effects on wound healing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022 Mar 22; 10:666434.
  • 57.
    Davidson JM
    ,
    Aquino AM
    ,
    Woodward SC
    ,
    Wilfinger WW.
    Sustained microgravity reduces intrinsic wound healing and growth factor responses in the rat. Faseb J. 1999 Feb; 13(
    2
    ):3259.
  • 58.
    Yue JJ
    ,
    Long W.
    Full endoscopic spinal surgery techniques: advancements, indications, and outcomes. Int J Spine Surg. 2015 May 20; 9:17.
  • 59.
    D’Souza M
    ,
    Gendreau J
    ,
    Feng A
    ,
    Kim LH
    ,
    Ho AL
    ,
    Veeravagu A.
    Robotic-assisted spine surgery: history, efficacy, cost, and future trends. Robot Surg. 2019 Nov 7; 6:923.
  • 60.
    Mueller A
    ,
    Petersen E
    ,
    Carroll D
    ,
    Lim RB
    ,
    Wisbach GG.
    Space surgery: a SAGES’ white paper. Surg Endosc. 2024 Sep; 38(
    9
    ):51608.
  • 61.
    Parazynski SE
    ,
    Hargens AR
    ,
    Tucker B
    ,
    Aratow M
    ,
    Styf J
    ,
    Crenshaw A.
    Transcapillary fluid shifts in tissues of the head and neck during and after simulated microgravity. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1991 Dec; 71(
    6
    ):246975.
  • 62.
    Hamilton DR
    ,
    Sargsyan AE
    ,
    Garcia K
    ,
    Ebert DJ
    ,
    Whitson PA
    , et al. Cardiac and vascular responses to thigh cuffs and respiratory maneuvers on crewmembers of the International Space Station. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2012 Feb; 112(
    3
    ):45462.
  • 63.
    Hettrick H
    ,
    Aviles F.
    Microgravity and lymphatics: why space programs need lymphedema physiology specialists. Lymphat Res Biol. 2023 Jun; 21(
    3
    ):2629.
  • 64.
    Burkhart K
    ,
    Allaire B
    ,
    Bouxsein ML.
    Negative effects of long-duration spaceflight on paraspinal muscle morphology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Jun 15; 44(
    12
    ):879.
  • 65.
    Smith TJ
    ,
    Wilson M
    ,
    Whitney C
    ,
    Fagnant H
    ,
    Neumeier WH
    , et al. Supplemental protein and a multinutrient beverage speed wound healing after acute sleep restriction in healthy adults. J Nutr. 2022 Jun 9; 152(
    6
    ):156073.
  • 66.
    Nieschwitz B
    ,
    Guilliams ME
    ,
    Hoellen D
    ,
    Loehr J.
    Post flight reconditioning for US astronauts returning from the International Space Station. Published online January 1, 2011. [Accessed September 26, 2024]. Available from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20110020318.
  • 67.
    Unger M
    ,
    Berger J
    ,
    Melzer A.
    Robot-assisted image-guided interventions. Front Robot AI. 2021 Jul 12; 8:664622.
  • 68.
    Su H
    ,
    Kwok K-W
    ,
    Cleary K
    ,
    Iordachita I
    ,
    Cavusoglu MC
    , et al. State of the art and future opportunities in MRI-guided robot-assisted surgery and interventions. Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng. 2022 Jul; 110(
    7
    ):96892.
  • 69.
    Chua MMJ
    ,
    Vasudeva VS
    ,
    Lu Y.
    Intraoperative ultrasound in spinal surgery. J Vis Exp. 2022 Aug 17; (
    186
    ).
  • 70.
    Gueziri HE
    ,
    Santaguida C
    ,
    Collins DL.
    The state-of-the-art in ultrasound-guided spine interventions. Med Image Anal. 2020 Oct; 65:101769.
  • 71.
    Judy BF
    ,
    Menta A
    ,
    Pak HL
    ,
    Azad TD
    ,
    Witham TF.
    Augmented reality and virtual reality in spine surgery: a comprehensive review. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2024 Apr; 35(
    2
    ):20716.
  • 72.
    Shahzad H
    ,
    Bhatti NS
    ,
    Phillips FM
    ,
    Khan SN.
    Applications of augmented reality in orthopaedic spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2023 Sep 1; 31(
    17
    ):e6019.
  • 73.
    Eadie LH
    ,
    Seifalian AM
    ,
    Davidson BR.
    Telemedicine in surgery. Br J Surg. 2003 Jun; 90(
    6
    ):64758.
  • 74.
    Green DA
    ,
    Scott JPR.
    Spinal health during unloading and reloading associated with spaceflight. Front Physiol. 2018 Jan 18; 8:1126.
  • 75.
    Schneider S
    ,
    Peipsi A
    ,
    Stokes M
    ,
    Knicker A
    ,
    Abeln V.
    Feasibility of monitoring muscle health in microgravity environments using Myoton technology. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2015 Jan; 53(
    1
    ):5766.
  • 76.
    Schoenrock B
    ,
    Muckelt PE
    ,
    Hastermann M
    ,
    Albracht K
    ,
    MacGregor R
    , et al. Muscle stiffness indicating mission crew health in space. Sci Rep. 2024 Feb 20; 14(
    1
    ):4196.
  • 77.
    Oltrogge DL
    ,
    Christensen IA.
    Space governance in the new space era. Journal of Space Safety Engineering. 2020 Sep; 7(
    3
    ):4328.
  • 78.
    Rajput S
    ,
    Mayor I
    ,
    Diamond M
    ,
    Rosenberg M
    ,
    Cole V
    , et al. Medical ethics of long-duration spaceflight. NPJ Microgravity. 2023 Nov 28; 9(
    1
    ):85.
  • 79.
    Stewart GE
    ,
    Drudi L.
    Medical education for exploration class missions NASA aerospace medicine elective at the Kennedy Space Centre. Mcgill J Med. 2011 Jun; 13(
    2
    ):55.
  • 80.
    Beard BL
    ,
    Bardina JE
    ,
    Toscano WB
    , Odina JO, Winther SW, et al. Medical system requirements development for lunar operations. [Accessed September 26, 2024]. Available from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230006092.
  • 81.
    Campbell MR.
    A review of surgical care in space. J Am Coll Surg. 2002 Jun; 194(
    6
    ):802.
  • 82.
    Blue RS
    ,
    Bridge LM
    ,
    Chough NG
    ,
    Cushman J
    ,
    Khpal M
    ,
    Watkins S.
    Identification of medical training methods for exploration missions. 2014. [Accessed October 25, 2024]. Available from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20130013532.
  • 83.
    Haidegger T.
    Autonomy for surgical robots: concepts and paradigms. IEEE Trans Med Robot Bionics. 2019 May; 1(
    2
    ):6576.
  • 84.
    Lee A
    ,
    Baker TS
    ,
    Bederson JB
    ,
    Rapoport BI.
    Levels of autonomy in FDA-cleared surgical robots: a systematic review. NPJ Digit Med. 2024 Apr 26; 7(
    1
    ):103.
  • 85.
    Wang J
    ,
    Miao J
    ,
    Zhan Y
    ,
    Duan Y
    ,
    Wang Y
    , et al. Spine surgical robotics: current status and recent clinical applications. Neurospine. 2023 Dec; 20(
    4
    ):125671.
Copyright: Reprint and copyright © by the Aerospace Medical Association, North Palm Beach, FL. 2025

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to: Abdullah Ghali, M.D., 7200 Cambridge St., Houston, TX 77054, United States; ghaliabdullah@gmail.com.
Received: 01 Jan 2025
Accepted: 01 Jul 2025
  • Download PDF