Intraoperative Waste in Spine Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to quantify the incidence of intraoperative waste in spine surgery and to examine the efficacy of an educational program directed at surgeons to induce a reduction in the intraoperative waste. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine procedures are associated with high costs. Implants are a main contributor of these costs. Intraoperative waste further exacerbates the high cost of surgery. METHODS: Data were collected during a 25-month period from one academic medical center (15-month observational period, 10-month post-awareness program). The total number of spine procedures and the incidence of intraoperative waste were recorded prospectively. Other variables recorded included the type of product wasted, cost associated with the product or implant wasted, and reason for the waste. RESULTS: Intraoperative waste occurred in 20.2% of the procedures prior to the educational program and in 10.3% of the procedures after the implementation of the program (P < 0.0001). Monthly costs associated with surgical waste were, on average, $17680 prior to the awareness intervention and $5876 afterwards (P = 0.0006). Prior to the intervention, surgical waste represented 4.3% of total operative spine budget. After the awareness program this proportion decrease to an average of 1.2% (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Intraoperative waste in spine surgery exacerbates the already costly procedures. Extrapolation of this data to the national level leads to an annual estimate of $126,722,000 attributable to intraoperative spine waste. A simple educational program proved to be and continues to be effective in making surgeons aware of the import of their choices and the costs related to surgical waste.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".