When is staging complex adult spinal deformity advantageous? Identifying subsets of patients who benefit from staged interventions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify baseline patient and surgical factors predictive of optimal outcomes in staged versus same-day combined-approach surgery. METHODS: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients with baseline and perioperative (by 6 weeks) data were stratified based on single-stage (same-day) or multistage (staged) surgery, excluding planned multiple hospitalizations. Means comparison analyses were used to assess baseline demographic, radiographic, and surgical differences between cohorts. Backstep logistic regression and conditional inference tree analysis were used to identify variable thresholds associated with study-specific definitions of an optimal outcome in each cohort, defined as no intraoperative or surgery-related in-hospital adverse event. RESULTS: There were 439 patients with complex ASD in the dataset (mean age 64.0 ± 9.3 years, 68% female, mean BMI 28.7 ± 5.5 kg/m2). Overall, 58.8% of patients were in the same-day group, while 41.2% were in the staged group. Demographically, cohorts were not significantly different (p > 0.05), but staged patients were more frail per total Edmonton Frail Scale score (p = 0.043). Staged patients also reported greater numeric rating scale scores for back pain than same-day patients (p = 0.002). Cohorts were comparable in magnitude of planned correction of C7-S1 sagittal vertical axis, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch, and T4-12 kyphosis (all p > 0.05). Controlling for baseline age, frailty, and number of levels fused, staged patients reported significantly higher PROMIS Discretionary Social Activities scores by 6 weeks (p = 0.029). Radiographic outcomes by 6 weeks were comparable between cohorts, in terms of both magnitude of change from baseline and overall result (all p > 0.05). Same-day patients were significantly more likely to experience in-hospital complications (p = 0.013). When considering frailty thresholds for staging, only a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≤ 1.0 was associated with optimal outcome in same-day patients, while Edmonton Frail Scale score ≥ 7 (p = 0.036), ≥ 9 levels fused (p = 0.016), and baseline PI-LL mismatch ≥ 15.3° (p = 0.028) were associated with optimal outcome for staged patients. Yet, staging alone was not significantly associated with an optimal outcome perioperatively (p = 0.056). CONCLUSIONS: While staged and same-day combined-approach surgeries yield comparable radiographic and patient-reported outcomes, certain subsets of complex ASD patients may benefit from staged surgery despite the invariably increased hospital length of stay. Individuals with increased frailty, moderate to severe PI-LL mismatch, and increased anticipated number of levels fused may experience a lower risk of perioperative adverse events if they undergo a staged procedure. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT04194138 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
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 | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 ».