The Differences Between Same-Day and Staged (Circumferential) Fusion Surgery in Adult Spinal Deformity: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a deformity in the curvature of the adult spine. ASD includes a range of pathology that leads to decreased quality of life for patients as well as debilitating morbidities. Treatment can range from nonoperative management to long-segment surgical corrections and depends greatly on the deformity and patient profiles. If surgical treatment is indicated, circumferential (a combined anterior and posterior approach) fusion is one of the tools in the spine surgeon's armamentarium. Depending on the complexity, the procedure is either completed on the same day or staged. Determining whether to perform a circumferential surgery in a staged fashion is based largely on the surgeon's preference and perception of the individual case complexity; at present, there is no high-quality evidence that can be used to support that decision. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a systematic review that aims to investigate the differences between same-day versus staged circumferential fusion surgery in ASD both in patient selection and in outcomes. METHODS: Searches will be performed on MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus. Gray literature and the reference lists of articles included in the full-text screening will also be screened for inclusion. Results will be exported to Covidence. Data will be collected on demographics, type of procedures performed, surgery levels, blood loss, total operation time, length of stay, disposition, readmissions (30 days and 90 days), and perioperative complications. Patient-reported outcomes will also be assessed. Data quality assessment of randomized controlled trials will be performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials, and nonrandomized studies will be assessed with the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) tool. All screening, quality assessment, and data extraction will be done by 2 independent reviewers. A descriptive synthesis will be performed, and data will be evaluated for further analysis. RESULTS: This study is currently in the screening phase. There are no results yet. The search strategy has been developed and documented. Information has been exported to Covidence. Upon conclusion of the critical appraisal stage, screening and extraction, as well as a synthesis of the results, will be performed. CONCLUSIONS: The intended review will summarize the differences in perioperative outcomes and complications between same-day and staged (circumferential) fusion surgery in adult spinal deformity. It will also describe the patients selected for such procedures based on their demographics and pathology. Identified gaps in knowledge will provide insight into current limitations and guide further studies on this topic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022339764; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=339764. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/42331.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,076 | 0,106 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,019 | 0,021 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,013 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,043 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».