MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393993898 · doi:10.1111/pan.14895

A survey of practice in the anesthetic management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis spine fusion by the North American Pediatric Spine Anesthesiologists Collaborative

2024· article· en· W4393993898 on OpenAlexaff
Laura E. Gilbertson, Wallis T. Muhly, Michael C. Montana, Vidya Chidambaran, Sabina DiCindio, Kesavan Sadacharam, Robert T. Wilder, Simon D. Whyte, Alan Hifko, Paul D. Sponseller, David D. Frankville

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Anesthesia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSPINE (molecular biology)ScoliosisAmerican society of anesthesiologistsIdiopathic scoliosisAnestheticSpinal fusionPhysical therapyAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) affects 2%-4% of the general pediatric population. While surgical correction remains one of the most common orthopedic procedures performed in pediatrics, limited consensus exists on the perioperative anesthetic management. AIMS: To examine the current state of anesthetic management of typical AIS spine fusions at institutions which have a dedicated pediatric orthopedic spine surgeon. METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to all members of the North American Pediatric Spine Anesthesiologists (NAPSA) Collaborative. This group included 34 anesthesiologists at 19 different institutions, each of whom has a Harms Study Group surgeon performing spine fusions at their hospital. RESULTS: Thirty-one of 34 (91.2%) anesthesiologists completed the survey, with a missing response rate from 0% to 16.1% depending on the question. Most anesthesia practices (77.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 67.7-93.4) do not have patients come for a preoperative visit prior to the day of surgery. Intravenous induction was the preferred method (74.2%; 95% CI 61.3-89.9), with the majority utilizing two peripheral IVs (93.5%; 95% CI 90.3-100) and an arterial line (100%; 95% CI 88.8-100). Paralytic administration for intubation and/or exposure was divided (51.6% rocuronium/vecuronium, 45.2% no paralytic, and 3.2% succinylcholine) amongst respondents. While tranexamic acid was consistently utilized for reducing blood loss, dosing regimens varied. When faced with neuromonitoring signal issues, 67.7% employ a formal protocol. Most anesthesiologists (93.5%; 95% CI 78.6-99.2) extubate immediately postoperatively with patients admitted to an inpatient floor bed (77.4%; 95% CI 67.7-93.3). CONCLUSION: Most anesthesiologists (87.1%; 95% CI 80.6-99.9) report the use of some form of an anesthesia-based protocol for AIS fusions, but our survey results show there is considerable variation in all aspects of perioperative care. Areas of agreement on management comprise the typical vascular access required, utilization of tranexamic acid, immediate extubation, and disposition to a floor bed. By recognizing the diversity of anesthetic care, we can develop areas of research and improve the perioperative management of AIS.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric AnesthesiaSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207