MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2231475364 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1554345

Risk Factors for Non-Neurological Complications in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: An International, Large-Scale, Prospective Multicenter Study

2015· article· en· W2231475364 on OpenAlexaff
Kmc Cheung, Cora Bow, Dino Samartzis, Mark B. Dekutoski, Frank Schwab, Oheneba Boachie-Adjei, Khaled M. Kebaish, Christopher P. Ames, Yong Qiu, Yukihiro Matsuyama, Benny Dahl, Hossein Mehdian, Ferrán Pellisé, Leah Y. Carreon, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Michael G. Fehlings, Lawrence G. Lenke

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComplicationSurgeryProspective cohort studyIncidence (geometry)DeformitySpinal deformityRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction High risk of complications has been noted in patients with complex adult spine deformity surgery. Although the overall complication rates had been reported, they are variable and can range from 14 to 46%. However, these studies were retrospective cohorts without a clear definition of inclusion criteria and systematic collection of clinical data. As such, a complete risk profile and an accurate complication rate remain unclear. The objectives of this study were to establish the prevalence and risk factors for non-neurological complications within first 6 months of surgery. Methods This is the first prospective, multicenter study involving 15 sites from North America, Europe, and Asia. Adult patients with severe spinal deformity were followed for 6 months postoperatively. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, functional scores, and radiographic measurements were used to determine the risk factors using multivariate modeling. Results A total of 269 patients (68% women and 32% men) were recruited (mean age: 57.8 years). Overall, 163 patients (60.6%) reported at least one incidence of complication. The prevalence of intraoperative event and postoperative complications were 29.4 ( n = 79) and 49.8% ( n = 134), respectively. Fifty-eight patients (21.6%) had major complications and 112 (42%) experienced minor complications. Moreover, 37% of the patients reported multiple complications. A total of 91 intraoperative events were reported. Dural tear was the most common intraoperative complication, accounting for 53% of all reported events. Previous spine surgery (adjusted OR: 3.6; 95% CI: 1.8–7.2) was found to be associated with intraoperative events in multivariate risk analysis. For major postoperative complications, a total of 79 cases were reported. Of these, 32% of the cases were respiratory complications, followed by loss of correction and implant failure, which accounted for 25% of the cases. Diabetes (OR: 3.8; 95% CI: 1.3–10.8) and lung disease (OR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.0–9.4) were significant risk factors for major complications. There were a total of 206 incidences of minor postoperative complications. Fifteen percent of the cases were urinary tract infections. Twenty-five patients (9.2%) also reported new onset or worsening back or lower extremity pain after surgery, accounting for 12% of all minor complications. Previous spine surgery was the most significant risk factor for minor complications (OR: 3.0; 95% CI: 1.5–6.3). Other significant contributors included age (OR: 1.03), female gender (OR: 2.7), and duration of surgery (OR: 0.99) ( p < 0.05). Conclusion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first and largest prospective study in the world to systematically address non-neurological complications of spine deformity surgery in adults. Our findings contribute to a complete “risk profile” of such 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207