MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk Factors for Infection After Spinal Surgery

2005· article· en· W2053992139 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew M. Fang, Serena S. Hu, Nathan K. Endres, David S. Bradford

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyDiabetes mellitusRisk of infectionRisk factorSpinal fusionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case control analysis of 48 cases of postoperative infection following spinal procedures. OBJECTIVES: Spinal procedures that became infected after surgery were analyzed to identify the significance of preoperative and intraoperative risk factors. Characterization of the nature and timing of the infections was also performed. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The rate of postoperative infection following spinal surgery varies widely depending on the nature of the procedure and the patient's diagnosis. Preoperative comorbidities and risk factors also influence the likelihood of infection. METHODS: A review of 1629 procedures performed on 1095 patients revealed that a postoperative infection developed in 48 patients (4.4%). Data regarding preoperative and intraoperative risk factors were gathered from patient charts for these and a randomly selected control group of 95 uninfected patients. For analysis, these patient groups were further divided into adult and pediatric subgroups, with an age cutoff of 18 years. Preoperative risk factors reviewed included smoking, diabetes, previous surgery, previous infection, steroid use, body mass index, and alcohol abuse. Intraoperative factors reviewed included staging of procedures, estimated blood loss, operating time, and use of allograft or instrumentation. RESULTS: The majority of infections occurred during the early postoperative period (less than 3 months). Age >60 years, smoking, diabetes, previous surgical infection, increased body mass index, and alcohol abuse were statistically significant preoperative risk factors. The most likely procedure to be complicated by an infection was a combined anterior/posterior spinal fusion performed in a staged manner under separate anesthesia. Infections were primarily monomicrobial, although 5 patients had more than 4 organisms identified. The most common organism cultured from the wounds was Staphylococcus aureus. All patients were treated with surgical irrigation and débridement, and appropriate antibiotics to treat the cultured organism. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive treatment of patients undergoing complex or prolonged spinal procedures is essential to prevent and treat infections. Understanding a patient's preoperative risk factors may help the physician to optimize a patient's preoperative condition. Additionally, awareness of critical intraoperative parameters will help to optimize surgical treatment. It may be appropriate to increase the duration of prophylactic antibiotics or implement other measures to decrease the incidence of infection for high risk patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations573
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207