Cyanoacrylate Dermal Closure in Spine Surgery: Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: Cyanoacrylate glue closure has been utilized for dermal closure in surgical incisions. Its safety and efficacy in spine surgery are not established. The authors perform a systematic review to determine the rate of surgical site infection (SSI), wound dehiscence, and wound erythema with cyanoacrylate dermal closure in spine surgery. METHODS: A systematic review adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed utilizing the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases on patients undergoing spine surgery with cyanoacrylate dermal closure. Pooled analysis was performed with stratification of patients according to spinal level and the presence/absence of instrumentation. Risk-of-bias and methodological quality was appraised using 17 prespecified criteria. RESULTS: Five articles (1 retrospective cohort study, 4 cases series) with a total of 1282 patients were included. A total of 967 patients, all diagnosed with degenerative spine disease, were suitable for pooled analysis. In 290 patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and in 23 patients with posterior cervical decompression (without instrumentation), there was 0% rate of SSI, wound dehiscence, and erythema. In 489 patients who underwent lumbar microdiscectomy, there was 0.41% rate of SSI, 0.20% rate of wound dehiscence, and 0.20% rate of wound erythema. In 165 lumbar laminectomy patients, there was a 1.82% rate of SSI, 0.61% rate of wound dehiscence, and 0% rate of wound erythema. CONCLUSION: Cyanoacrylate dermal closure for the aforementioned procedures is associated with low rates of wound complications (SSI, dehiscence, and erythema). Further studies should be performed, especially in nondegenerative surgery, instrumented thoracic and lumbar spine surgery.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".