Impact of preoperative neurological status on perioperative morbidity associated with anterior and posterior cervical fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Cervical spine fusion is performed for various indications in patient populations ranging from young and healthy to aged and frail. Whereas disease pathoanatomy dictates the surgical approach, preoperative neurological status does not necessarily implicate a specific technique. Although one expects anterior decompression to be performed over fewer segments in healthier patients who experience fewer complications and faster recovery, the impact of pre-operative myelopathy on perioperative complications remains unclear. No large-scale study has evaluated rates of common complications for cervical fusion or their association with surgical approach and neurological status. METHODS: Data for 96,773 patients who underwent cervical fusion for degenerative disease between 1988 and 2003 were collected from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Patients were grouped according to surgical approach (anterior versus posterior) and preoperative neurological status (myelopathic versus nonmyelopathic). Multivariate regression was used to evaluate group effects on selected postoperative complications, length of stay, and disposition at the time of hospital discharge. Although this technique can control for the observed covariates, the absence of key information such as the number of fused levels precludes statistical comparison between patients who underwent anterior or posterior approaches. RESULTS: In this study the authors confirmed that preoperative neurological status impacts perioperative morbidity. For example, patients who were nonmyelopathic and underwent an anterior approach were 7 years younger than the rest of the cohort, and they had a mortality rate of 0.05%. Transfusion was required in 0.34%, and venous thromboembolism occurred in 0.04%. Conversely, these rates were > 13-fold higher in patients with myelopathy who underwent a posterior approach. Furthermore, independent of approach, preoperative myelopathy is highly prognostic of death, pneumonia, transfusion, infection, length of stay, and posthospital disposition. These outcomes at least doubled, with some increasing > 10-fold. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide study clarifies the frequency and associations of inpatient complications encountered when treating cervical spine disease. Whereas immediate complications due to anterior approaches are limited, patients with myelopathy who undergo a posterior approach have a more sobering outlook. This study shows that clinical myelopathy augments rates of complication during cervical fusion, regardless of the approach. The exclusion of pathoanatomical data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, of key importance in guiding the surgical approach, prevents any conclusions being drawn about the merits and disadvantages of anterior versus posterior surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".