Blood Management and Conservation During Adult Spine Deformity Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study DesignNarrative literature review.ObjectivesTo summarize the evidence for perioperative blood conservation for patients undergoing surgery for adult spine deformity.MethodsA systematic literature review with narrative analysis was conducted to describe the evidence for blood conservation strategies before, during and after surgery for adult spine deformity. The evidence is critically analyzed and recommendation drawn.ResultsThe evidence for iron supplementation, autologous blood donation, screening for diatheses, the constitution of the surgical team, hypotensive anaesthesia, osteotomy, patient positioning, antifibrinolytics, transfusion thresholds, cell salvage, surgical technique, topical hemostasis, postoperative drainage, postoperative tranexamic acid and the management of thromboprophylaxis and anticoagulants is critically evaluated. The management of haemorrhage in surgery for adult spine deformity is complex and multifaceted, requiring the surgeon to consider tactics in conservation at every stage of the process. There is a paucity of evidence for many techniques, whilst hypotensive anaesthesia, tranexamic acid, surgical team members and surgical duration have the most significant effects on blood loss and transfusion requirements.ConclusionsThe astute surgeon must consider strategies to prevent excessive haemorrhage in the pre- intra- and postoperative phases of care. Although some commonly used techniques have robust evidence, others may be at best poorly evidenced, and at worst ineffective. Surgeons should consider the members of the operative team, minimizing surgical time, preoperative correction of anemia, hypotensive anesthesia and the use of intravenous and topical tranexamic acid at a minimum.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".