MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407147468 · doi:10.1186/s13018-025-05540-6

Effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic debridement and drainage for spinal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4407147468 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guozhong Zhou, Xiaorong Liu, Zhi Liang, Xuesong Chen, Chao Song

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKunming University of Science and Technology
KeywordsMedicineDebridement (dental)Meta-analysisPercutaneousOrthopedic surgerySurgeryDrainageSystematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Spinal infections (SI) typically manifest with and pose a growing medical challenge. However, current evidence for treating SI is limited and inconclusive. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous endoscopic disc decompression (PEDD) for SI. METHODS: On 20 October 2023, we searched the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine Disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases for eligible studies. Cohort studies on SI treated with PEDD, reporting relevant effectiveness or safety outcomes. We assessed study quality using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate pooled results. RESULTS: Overall, 36 studies involving 925 patients were included. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate levels decreased significantly at 1-week postoperatively compared with preoperative levels (mean difference [MD] = - 13.48 [95% CI - 15.65 to - 11.31]) and continued to decrease over 3 months. Similarly, the c-reactive protein (CRP), visual analogue scale, and oswestry disability index scores significantly reduced postoperatively. The rates of excellent or good MacNab classification were 92.6% (95% CI 84.1-98.1%). Microbiological diagnostics revealed a 71.7% (95% CI 65.5-77.6%) positive rate in tissue cultures, surpassing blood cultures (odds ratio [OR] 2.72 [95% CI 1.01-7.30]). The rates of complication, reoperation, and mortality were 4.1% (95% CI 1.5-8.0%), 8.6% (95% CI 4.3-14.3%), and 1.7% (95% CI 0.4-4.1%), respectively. Subgroup analyses demonstrated a significantly lower reoperation rate in the group that discontinued antibiotics based on a normal CRP than in the fixed-duration group (2.7% [95% CI 0.3-7.7%] vs 20.1% [95% CI 14.5-26.3%], p = 0.0002). Conversely, ambulation 1 day postoperatively was associated with a higher reoperation rate than ambulation within 5-14 days (16.2% [95% CI 9.3-24.6%] vs 1.1% [95% CI 0.0-6.0%], p = 0.0060). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests that PEDD is a potentially effective and safe intervention for SI. Optimizing antibiotic discontinuation and postoperative care strategies may contribute to reducing reoperation rate. However, these findings require further validation from controlled studies.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.040
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and ResearchSame topicInfectious Diseases and TuberculosisFrench-language works237,207