When is staging complex adult spinal deformity advantageous? Identifying subsets of patients who benefit from staged interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify baseline patient and surgical factors predictive of optimal outcomes in staged versus same-day combined-approach surgery. METHODS: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients with baseline and perioperative (by 6 weeks) data were stratified based on single-stage (same-day) or multistage (staged) surgery, excluding planned multiple hospitalizations. Means comparison analyses were used to assess baseline demographic, radiographic, and surgical differences between cohorts. Backstep logistic regression and conditional inference tree analysis were used to identify variable thresholds associated with study-specific definitions of an optimal outcome in each cohort, defined as no intraoperative or surgery-related in-hospital adverse event. RESULTS: There were 439 patients with complex ASD in the dataset (mean age 64.0 ± 9.3 years, 68% female, mean BMI 28.7 ± 5.5 kg/m2). Overall, 58.8% of patients were in the same-day group, while 41.2% were in the staged group. Demographically, cohorts were not significantly different (p > 0.05), but staged patients were more frail per total Edmonton Frail Scale score (p = 0.043). Staged patients also reported greater numeric rating scale scores for back pain than same-day patients (p = 0.002). Cohorts were comparable in magnitude of planned correction of C7-S1 sagittal vertical axis, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch, and T4-12 kyphosis (all p > 0.05). Controlling for baseline age, frailty, and number of levels fused, staged patients reported significantly higher PROMIS Discretionary Social Activities scores by 6 weeks (p = 0.029). Radiographic outcomes by 6 weeks were comparable between cohorts, in terms of both magnitude of change from baseline and overall result (all p > 0.05). Same-day patients were significantly more likely to experience in-hospital complications (p = 0.013). When considering frailty thresholds for staging, only a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≤ 1.0 was associated with optimal outcome in same-day patients, while Edmonton Frail Scale score ≥ 7 (p = 0.036), ≥ 9 levels fused (p = 0.016), and baseline PI-LL mismatch ≥ 15.3° (p = 0.028) were associated with optimal outcome for staged patients. Yet, staging alone was not significantly associated with an optimal outcome perioperatively (p = 0.056). CONCLUSIONS: While staged and same-day combined-approach surgeries yield comparable radiographic and patient-reported outcomes, certain subsets of complex ASD patients may benefit from staged surgery despite the invariably increased hospital length of stay. Individuals with increased frailty, moderate to severe PI-LL mismatch, and increased anticipated number of levels fused may experience a lower risk of perioperative adverse events if they undergo a staged procedure. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT04194138 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".