MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297107271 · doi:10.21037/jss-22-47

Management of deep surgical site infections of the spine: a Canadian nationwide survey

2022· article· en· W4297107271 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohamed Sarraj, Abdullah Alqahtani, Patrick Thornley, Frank Koziarz, Christopher S. Bailey, Millaray Freire-Archer, Kunal Bhanot, Edward Kachur, Mohit Bhandari, Colby Oitment

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spine Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsGrand River HospitalWestern UniversityMcMaster UniversityHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpecialtyDebridement (dental)Surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Deep surgical site infections after spinal instrumentation represent a significant source of patient morbidity and poorer outcomes. Given lack of evidence or guidelines on the variety of procedural options in the management of deep spine surgical site infections, the purpose of this survey was to document and investigate the use of these techniques across Canada. Methods: A 34-question survey evaluating surgical techniques for irrigation and debridement in postoperative thoracolumbar infection was distributed to Canadian adult spine surgeons. Results were analyzed qualitatively, and comparisons by specialty, years of training, and number of cases were completed using Fischer's exact tests. We defined consensus as >70% agreement. Results: We received 53 responses (62% response rate) from a comprehensive sample of Canadian adult spine surgeons. There was a consensus to retain hardware (80%) and interbody implants (93%) in acute infection, to retain interbody implants in chronic/recurrent infection (71%), and application of topical antibiotics in recurrent infection (85%). There was consensus on the use of absorbable suture to close fascia in acute (83%) and chronic (87%) infection. Eighty-five percent of surgeons used nonabsorbable materials such as Nylon or staples for skin closure in chronic infection, however, there was no consensus in acute infection. Surgeons varied significantly in type, volume and pressure of fluids, adjuvant solvents, graft management, use of topical antibiotics acutely, and the use of negative pressure wound therapy. Partial hardware exchange was controversial. Additionally, specialty or surgeon experience had no impact on management strategy. Conclusions: This survey demonstrates significant heterogeneity amongst Canadian adult spine surgeons regarding key steps in the surgical management of deep instrumented spine infection, concordant with scarce literature addressing these steps.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spine SurgerySame topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207