Effectiveness and safety analysis of titanium mesh grafting versus bone grafting in the treatment of spinal Tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 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 teacher head, 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".