Surgical Site Infection in Spine Surgery: Who Is at Risk?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective literature review of spine surgical site infection (SSI). OBJECTIVE: To perform a review of SSI risk factors and more specifically, categorize them into patient and surgical factors. METHODS: A review of published literature on SSI risk factors in adult spine surgery was performed. We included studies that reported risk factors for SSI in adult spinal surgery. Excluded are pediatric patient populations, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Overall, we identified 72 cohort studies, 1 controlled-cohort study, 1 matched-cohort study, 1 matched-paired cohort study, 12 case-controlled studies (CCS), 6 case series, and 1 cross-sectional study. RESULTS: ), subcutaneous fat thickness, multiple medical comorbidities, current smoker, and malnutrition were associated with SSI. Surgical associated factors-preoperative radiation/postoperative blood transfusion, combined anterior/posterior approach, surgical invasiveness, or levels of instrumentation were associated with increased SSI. There is mixed evidence of age, duration of surgery, surgical team, intraoperative blood loss, dural tear, and urinary tract infection/urinary catheter in association with SSI. CONCLUSION: SSIs are associated with many risk factors that can be patient or surgically related. Our review was able to identify important modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors that can be essential in surgical planning and discussion with 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".