Incidence of and Risk Factors for Loss of 1 Blood Volume During Spinal Fusion Surgery in Patients With Cerebral Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spinal fusion surgery is associated with greater blood loss in patients with cerebral palsy (CP) than in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Risk factors for loss of 1 blood volume (LOBV) in patients with CP have not been well studied. We investigated the incidence of and risk factors for LOBV during spinal fusion surgery in young patients with CP. METHODS: We queried a multicenter registry of CP patients for all patients 21 years or younger who had undergone spinal fusion from 2008 through 2013; 272 patients met these criteria. We analyzed data on patient characteristics, preoperative laboratory values, radiographic measures, and surgical characteristics. For univariate analysis, we used χ tests and logistic regression models. Factors that were significant in the univariate analysis were used to construct a multivariate logistic regression model. Significance was set at P<0.01. RESULTS: Incidence of LOBV was 39.7%. On multivariate analysis, unit rod construct and coronal curve magnitude were significantly associated with LOBV (P<0.01). The multivariate model accounted for 32.2% of variance in LOBV. Compared with patients with pedicle screw-rod constructs, patients with unit rod constructs had 12.6-fold higher odds of LOBV (P<0.01). For each 1-degree increase in coronal curve magnitude, odds of LOBV increased 1.03-fold (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CP, there is a substantial risk of LOBV during spinal fusion surgery. Use of unit rod constructs and greater preoperative coronal curves were significant risk factors for LOBV during surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".