Comparison of Overall Complication Rates in VCR-Based vs Non-VCR-Based Corrective Techniques in Severe Rigid Kyphoscoliosis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective Compilation of complication outcomes data from the surgical management of severe rigid kyphoscoliosis patients using VCR-based vs non-VCR-based corrective maneuvers is lacking. This meta-analysis aimed to compare complication outcomes between those classified osteotomy approaches. Methods Thorough literature review and meta-analysis were conducted between January 2000 and September 2021. The selection criteria were studies: i) reporting major curve Cobb angle of ≥80° and flexibility of <25% or 30%; ii) comparing VCR or ≥ Type V Schwab osteotomy defined as VCR-based vs [non-VCR-based] techniques, (any osteotomy or technique other than VCR); iii) published in English with ≥10 patients; iv) reporting complication rates; and v) having minimum of 2-year follow-up. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Significance level was set at ( P < .05). Results Of the 174 patients included, 52.30% (n = 91) and 47.70% (n = 83) were VCR-based and non-VCR-based, respectively. The incidence of dural tears/nerve injuries/significant intraoperative-neuromonitoring changes was significantly higher; [OR = 6.78, CI= (1.75 to 26.17), I2 = 0%, ( P = .006)] in the VCR-based group than the non-VCR-based group. The ‘overall surgical and medical’ complication rate was significantly higher in the VCR-based group, [OR = 1.94, CI= (1.02 to 3.67), I2 = 31%, ( P = .04)]. Conclusion Both VCR-based and non-VCR-based surgical techniques for management of severe rigid scoliosis and kyphoscoliosis patients pose comparable overall surgical complication rates, while a significantly higher perioperative neurological complication incidence was associated with VCR-based technique compared to the non-VCR-based techniques. The VCR-based technique was associated with 6.78 times higher incidence of neurological complications compared to non-VCR-based techniques.
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) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".