Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patent bibliometrics in spinal deformity: the first bibliometric analysis of spinal deformity’s technological literature

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Bibliometric analyses have gained popularity for studying scientific literature, but their application to evaluate technological literature (patents) remains unexplored. We conducted a bibliometric analysis on the top 100 most-cited patents in scoliosis surgery.

Methods

Multiple databases were queried using The Lens to identify the top 100 scoliosis surgery patents, which were selected based on forward patent citations. These patents were then categorized into 8 groups based on technological descriptors and assessed based on various factors including earliest priority date, year issued, and expiration status.

Results

The top 100 most-cited patents included technology underlying anterolateral tethering and distraction systems (n = 11), posterior tethering and distraction systems (n = 23), posterior segmental bone anchor and rod engagement systems (n = 29), interbody devices (n = 10), biological and electrophysiological agents for scoliosis treatment and/or improved arthrodesis (n = 8), intraoperative arthroplasty devices (n = 5), orthotic devices (n = 12), and implantable devices for non-invasive, postoperative alterations of skeletal alignment (n = 2). Seventy-five patents were expired, 21 are still active, and 4 were listed as inactive. The late 1970s and early 2000s saw increased numbers of patent filings. Demonstrated trends showed no meaningful correlation between patent rank and earliest priority date (linear trendline y = 0.2648x – 477.27; R2 = 0.0114), while a very strong correlation was found between patent rank and citations per year (power trendline y = 118.82x−−0.83; R2 = 0.8983).

Conclusion

Patent bibliometric analyses in the field of spinal deformity surgery provide a means to assess past advancements, better understand what it takes to make a difference in the field, and to potentially facilitate the development of innovative technologies in the future. The method described is a reliable and reproducible technique for evaluating technological literature in our field.

Level of evidence

3.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cornwall GB, Davis A, Walsh WR, Mobbs RJ, Vaccaro A (2020) Innovation and new technologies in spine surgery, Circa 2020: a fifty-year review. Front Surg. 7:575318. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2020.575318

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Marcus HJ, Hughes-Hallett A, Kwasnicki RM, Darzi A, Yang GZ, Nandi D (2015) Technological innovation in neurosurgery: a quantitative study. J Neurosurg 123(1):174–181. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.12.JNS141422

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. PubMed. Bibliometrics. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=bibliometrics&sort=date. Accessed April 1, 2023.

  4. PubMed. Neurosurgery Biblometrics. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=neurosurgery+bibliometrics&sort=date. Accessed April 1, 2023

  5. Bohl MA, Ponce FA (2017) Assessing the relevancy of highly cited works in neurosurgery. Part I: the 100 most relevant papers in neurosurgical journals. World Neurosurg. 104:927–938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bohl MA, Turner JD, Little AS, Nakaji P, Ponce FA (2017) Assessing the relevancy of “citation classics” in neurosurgery. Part II: foundational papers in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg. 104:939–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hani U, Mulvaney GG, O’Brien MD et al (2023) Review: patent bibliometrics in cranial neurosurgery: the first bibliometric analysis of neurosurgery’s technological literature. World Neurosurg 171:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2022.12.103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eugene G (1979) Citation indexing—its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Garfield E (1957) Breaking the subject index barrier-a citation index for chemical patents. J Pat Soc 39:583

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ponce FA, Lozano AM (2010) Highly cited works in neurosurgery. Part I: the 100 top-cited papers in neurosurgical journals. J Neurosurg 112(2):223–232. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.12.JNS091599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ponce FA, Lozano AM (2010) Highly cited works in neurosurgery. Part II: the citation classics: a review. J Neurosurg 112(2):233–246. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.12.JNS091600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. About The Lens. https://about.lens.org/. Accessed April 1, 2023

  13. Baron RB, Kessler RA, Bhammar A et al (2020) Patents and innovation among neurosurgeons from the American association of neurological surgeons. Cureus. 12(2):e7031. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7031

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Carpenter MP, Narin F, Woolf P (1981) Citation rates to technologically important patents. World Pat Inf 3(4):160–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0172-2190(81)90098-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Trajtenberg M (1990) A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND J Econ 21(1):172. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Narin F, Hamilton KS, Olivastro D (1997) The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Res Policy 26(3):317–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00013-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Meyer M (2000) Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Res Policy 29(3):409–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00040-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding source to report.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine Associates, 225 Baldwin Avenue, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA

    Ummey Hani, Christopher Holland, Matthew J. McGirt, Paul K. Kim, Samuel Chewning & Michael A. Bohl

  2. Spinefirst, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, 28203, USA

    Ummey Hani, Christopher Holland, Matthew J. McGirt, Paul K. Kim, Samuel Chewning & Michael A. Bohl

  3. School of Medicine, University of Vanderbilt, Nashville, TN, USA

    Jeffrey Wu Chen & Samuel Chewning

Authors
  1. Ummey Hani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey Wu Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher Holland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew J. McGirt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul K. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Samuel Chewning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael A. Bohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

UH: study conceptualization, data interpretation, drafting the original manuscript, and approval of the final manuscript. JWC: data acquisition and analysis, drafting the original manuscript, and approval of the final manuscript. CH: data interpretation, critically revising the manuscript, study supervision, and approval of the final manuscript. MJMG: data interpretation, critically revising the manuscript, study supervision, and approval of the final manuscript. PKK: data interpretation, critically revising the manuscript, study supervision, and approval of the final manuscript. SC: data interpretation, critically revising the manuscript, study supervision, and approval of the final manuscript. MAB: study conceptualization, data acquisition and analysis, critically revising the manuscript, study supervision, and approval of the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael A. Bohl.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest in the drugs, materials, or devices described in the article.

Informed consent

No informed consent was needed, because the study was a review of existing literature and did not involve any contact with human subjects.

IRB approval

No IRB approval was needed, because the study was a review of existing literature and did not involve any contact with human or animal subjects.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hani, U., Chen, J.W., Holland, C. et al. Patent bibliometrics in spinal deformity: the first bibliometric analysis of spinal deformity’s technological literature. Spine Deform 12, 25–33 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-023-00767-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-023-00767-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation