MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4406144706 · doi:10.2196/67290

Comparison of Outcomes Between Staged and Same-Day Circumferential Spinal Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4406144706 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mert Marcel Dagli, Ryan Turlip, Felix C. Oettl, Mohamed Emara, Jaskeerat Gujral, Daksh Chauhan, Hasan S. Ahmad, Gabrielle Santangelo, Connor Wathen, Yohannes Ghenbot, John D. Arena, Joshua L. Golubovsky, Ben Jiahe Gu, John H. Shin, Jang W. Yoon, Ali K. Ozturk, William C. Welch

Notice bibliographique

RevueInteractive Journal of Medical Research · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMeta-analysisSpinal deformitySystematic reviewMEDLINESpinal fusionWeb of scienceSurgeryPhysical therapyDeformityInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a prevalent condition often treated with circumferential spinal fusion (CF), which can be performed as staged or same-day procedures. However, evidence guiding the choice between these approaches is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare patient outcomes following staged and same-day CF for ASD. METHODS: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus. Eligibility criteria included studies comparing outcomes following staged and same-day CF in adults with ASD. Searches were exported to Covidence, and records were deduplicated automatically. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers, with all conflicts being resolved by a third reviewer. A meta-analysis was conducted for outcomes reported in 3 or more studies. RESULTS: Seven studies with 741 patients undergoing CF for ASD were included in the review (staged: n=331, 44.7% and same-day: n=410, 55.3%). Four studies that had comparable outcomes were merged for the quantitative meta-analysis and split based on observed measures. The meta-analysis revealed significantly shorter hospital length of stay (mean difference 3.98, 95% CI 2.23-5.72 days; P<.001) for same-day CF. Three studies compared the operative time between staged and same-day CF, with all reporting a lower mean operative time for same-day CF (mean between 291-479, SD 129 minutes) compared to staged CF (mean between 426-541, SD 124 minutes); however, inconsistent reporting of mean and SD made quantitative analyses unattainable. Of the 4 studies that compared estimated blood loss (EBL) in the relevant groups, 3 presented a lower EBL (mean between 412-1127, SD 954 mL) in same-day surgery compared to staged surgery (mean between 642, SD 550 to 1351, SD 869 mL). Both studies that reported intra- and postoperative adverse events showed more intraoperative adverse events in staged CF (10.9% and 13.6%, respectively) compared to same-day CF (9.1% and 3.6%, respectively). Four studies measuring any perioperative adverse events showed a higher incidence of adverse events in staged CF than all studies combined. However, quantitative analysis of EBL, intraoperative adverse events, and perioperative adverse events found no statistically significant difference. Postoperative adverse events, reoperation, infection rates, and readmission rates showed inconsistent findings between studies. Data quality assessment revealed a moderate degree of bias for all included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Same-day CF may offer shorter operating time and hospital stay compared to staged CF for ASD. However, there was marked heterogeneity in perioperative outcomes reporting, and continuous variables were inconsistently presented. This underscored the need for standardized reporting of clinical variables and patient-reported outcomes and higher evidence of randomized controlled trials to elucidate the clinical superiority of either approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022339764; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=339764. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/42331.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,463
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,027
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0160,004
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,367
Tête enseignante GPT0,609
Écart entre enseignants0,242 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInteractive Journal of Medical ResearchMême sujetScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentTravaux en français237 207