Incidence, Predictors and Post-Operative Complications of Blood Transfusion in Thoracic and Lumbar Fusion Surgery: An Analysis of 14,249 Patients from the ACS-NSQIP Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Hemorrhage and transfusion requirements in spine surgery are common. This is especially true for thoracic and lumbar fusion surgeries. There is limited data in the literature concerning predictive factors for transfusion and their effect on short-term post-operative outcomes. Material and Methods The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was used to identify patients that underwent lumbar or thoracic fusion surgery from 2010 to 2013. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis was used to determine predictive factors and post-operative complications associated with transfusion. Results A total of 14,249 patients were included in this study; 13,586 had lumbar fusion and 663 had thoracic fusion surgery. The prevalence of transfusion was 35% for thoracic fusion and 17.5% for lumbar fusion. The multivariate analysis showed that age between 50–60 (OR 1.38, CI: 1.23–1.54), age between 61–70 (OR 1.65, CI: 1.40–1.95), dyspnea (OR 1.11, CI: 1.02–1.23), hypertension (OR 1.14, CI: 1.02–1.27), ASA class (OR 1.73, 1.18–1.45), pre-operative blood transfusion (OR 1.91, CI: 1.04–3.49), and extended surgical time (OR 4.51, CI: 4.09–4.98) were predictors of blood transfusion requirements for lumbar fusion. While only pre-operative BUN (OR 1.04, CI: 1.01–1.06) and extended surgical time (OR 4.70, CI: 3.12–6.96) were predictors of transfusion for thoracic fusion. In contrast, higher pre-operative hematocrit was protective against transfusion. Patients transfused who underwent lumbar fusion had an increased risk to develop superficial wound infection, deep wound infection, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction and had longer length of hospital stay. Patients transfused who underwent thoracic fusion were more likely to have venous thromboembolism and extended length of hospital stay. However, mortality was not associated with blood transfusion. Conclusion This study used a large database to characterize the incidence, predictors and post-operative complications associated with blood transfusion in thoracic and lumbar fusion surgeries. Pre- and post-operative planning for patients deemed to be at high-risk of requiring blood transfusion should be considered to reduce post-operative complication in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".