Indications and Outcomes of Cell Saver in Adolescent Scoliosis Correction Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the indications and outcomes for intraoperative cell salvage during adolescent scoliosis correction surgery by systematically reviewing all available evidence. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several blood conservation strategies exist to minimize the consequences of blood loss because of scoliosis correction surgery. The utility of intraoperative cell salvage has been contested in the literature with respect to benefits and cost. High-quality randomized control trials are needed to help surgeons make an informed decision about including Cell Saver into their practice. METHODS: The databases Medline, Embase, Ovid Healthstar, and PubMed were searched for English language literature investigating Cell Saver use during adolescent scoliosis correction surgery, mean ages 10 to 19 years inclusively. Qualitative and quantitative findings from relevant studies are presented. RESULTS: There were seven eligible studies that directly compared the use of Cell Saver (349 patients) against a Control (non-Cell Saver) group (244 patients). The majority of the demographic and hematologic data were consistent between both groups. The average volume of blood that was re-infused into patients in the Cell Saver group was 453.8 mL. Patients in the Cell Saver group received significantly fewer allogenic blood transfusions than the Control group, with 32.6% less intraoperatively, 45.9% less postoperatively, and 47.3% less perioperatively. On average, Cell Saver patients received 1.0 fewer unit of allogenic blood compared to the Control group patients. CONCLUSION: Cell Saver reduces the demand for allogenic transfusion. This review supports the use of Cell Saver if the associated monetary costs are expected to be less than the cost of transfusing one unit of allogenic blood. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".