Complications in the Elderly Population Undergoing Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Objectives The elderly have an increased risk of perioperative complications for Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD) corrections. Stratification of these perioperative complications based on risk type and specific risk factors, however, remain unclear. This paper will systematically review perioperative risk factors in the elderly undergoing ASD correction stratified by type: medical, implant-related, proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), and need for revision surgery. Methods A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA guidelines. A query of PubMed was performed to identify publications pertinent to ASD in the elderly. Publications included in this review focused on patients ≥65 years old who underwent operative management for ASD to assess for risk factors of perioperative complications. Results A total of 734 unique citations were screened resulting in ten included articles for this review. Pooled incidence of perioperative complications included medical complications (21%), implant-related complications (16%), PJK (29%), and revision surgery (13%). Meta-analysis calculated greater preoperative PT (WMD 2.66; 95% Cl .36–4.96; P = .02), greater preoperative SVA (WMD 2.24; 95% Cl .62–3.86; P = .01), and greater postoperative SVA (WMD .97; 95% Cl .03–1.90; P = .04) to significantly correlate with development of PJK with no evidence of publication bias or concerns in study heterogeneity. Conclusions There is a paucity of literature describing perioperative complications in the elderly following ASD surgery. Appropriate understanding of modifiable risk factors for the development of medical and implant-related complications, proximal junctional kyphosis, and revision surgeries presents an opportunity to decrease morbidity and improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".