The Effect of Tobacco Smoking on Adverse Events Following Adult Complex Deformity Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Post-hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of smoking on rates of postoperative adverse events (AEs) in patients undergoing high-risk adult spine deformity surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Smoking is a known predictor of medical complications after adult deformity surgery, but the effect on complications, implant failure and other AEs has not been adequately described in prospective studies. METHODS: Twenty-six patients with a history of current smoking were identified out of the 272 patients enrolled in the SCOLI-RISK-1 study who underwent complex adult spinal deformity surgery at 15 centers, with 2-year follow-up. The outcomes and incidence of AEs in these patients were compared to the nonsmoking cohort (n = 244) using univariate analysis, with additional multivariate regression to adjust for the effect of patient demographics, complexity of surgery, and other confounders. RESULTS: The number of levels and complexity of surgery in both cohorts were comparable. In the univariate analysis, the rates of implant failure were almost double (odds ratio 2.28 [0.75-6.18]) in smoking group (n = 7; 26.9%)) that observed in the nonsmoking group (n = 34; 13.9%), but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.088). Surgery-related excessive bleeding (>4 L) was significantly higher in the smoking group (n = 5 vs. n = 9; 19.2% vs. 3.7%; OR 6.22[1.48 - 22.75]; P = 0.006). Wound infection rates and respiratory complications were similar in both groups. In the multivariate analysis, the smoking group demonstrated a higher incidence of any surgery-related AEs over 2 years (n = 13 vs. n = 95; 50.0% vs. 38.9%; OR 2.12 [0.88-5.09]) (P = 0.094). CONCLUSION: In this secondary analysis of patients from the SCOLI-RISK-1 study, a history of smoking significantly increased the risk of excessive intraoperative bleeding and nonsignificantly increased the rate of implant failure or surgery-related AEs over 2 years. The authors therefore advocate a smoking cessation program in patients undergoing complex adult spine deformity surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".