MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389612416 · doi:10.1186/s12893-023-02283-1

Effectiveness and safety analysis of titanium mesh grafting versus bone grafting in the treatment of spinal Tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4389612416 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fangfang Deng, Bo Chen, Huali Guo, Qingqing Chen, Feifan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Surgery · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryBone graftingConfidence intervalSpinal cord injurySpinal fusionSpinal cordInternal medicineRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To systematically assess the safety and effectiveness of titanium mesh grafting compared with bone grafting in the treatment of spinal tuberculosis. METHODS: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were searched from their inception until April 2023. The outcome indicators for patients treated with titanium mesh grafting or bone grafting for spinal tuberculosis include surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, graft fusion time, American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Spinal Cord Injury Grade E assessment, VAS score, lumbar pain score, post-graft kyphotic angle, and postoperative complications. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach were used for quality assessment and evidence grading of clinical studies. Funnel plots and Begg's test were employed for bias assessment. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies were finally included, comprising 523 patients, with 267 cases of titanium mesh fixation and 256 cases of bone grafting. The meta-analysis showed no significant statistical differences in surgical duration (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) = -7.20, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): -28.06 to 13.67, P = 0.499), intraoperative blood loss (WMD = 16.22, 95% CI: -40.62 to 73.06, P = 0.576), graft fusion time (WMD = 0.97, 95% CI: -0.88 to 2.81, P = 0.304), ASIA Spinal Cord Injury Grade E assessment (Relative Risk (RR) = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.09, P = 0.346), and overall complications (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.55, P = 0.643). Differences in VAS score, ODI lumbar pain score, and post-graft kyphotic angle between the titanium mesh grafting group and the bone grafting group were not significant within the 95% CI range. The rate of postoperative implant subsidence was slightly lower in bone grafting than in titanium mesh grafting (RR = 9.30, 95% CI: 1.05 to 82.22, P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Both bone grafting and titanium mesh grafting are effective and safe for the surgery, with no significant statistical differences in the results. Considering the limitations of the present study, large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to further verify the reliability of this finding.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.041
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC SurgerySame topicInfectious Diseases and TuberculosisFrench-language works237,207