Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29344731›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2018

The impact of surgeon volume on patient outcome in spine surgery: a systematic review.

Azeem Tariq Malik, Usman Younis Panni, Muhammad Usman Mirza, Maryam Tetlay, Shahryar Noordin

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Length of stay after lumbar decompressive surgery: prediction model, clinical reasons for prolonged stay, and association of prolonged stay with outcomes.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Surgeon specialty effect on early outcomes of elective posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a propensity-matched analysis of 965 patients.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The impact of anesthesia and surgical provider characteristics on outcomes after spine surgery.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Azeem Tariq MalikDepartment of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA. azeemtariq94@gmail.com.
Usman Younis PanniSection of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Muhammad Usman MirzaDepartment of Internal Medicine, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Maryam TetlaySection of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Shahryar NoordinSection of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Aga Khan University · PKMedStar Washington Hospital Center · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRecently, strategies aimed at optimizing provider factors have been proposed, including regionalization of surgeries to higher volume centers and adoption of volume standards. With limited literature promoting the regionalization of spine surgeries, we undertook a systematic review to investigate the impact of surgeon volume on outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery.

methodsWe performed a systematic review examining the association between surgeon volume and spine surgery outcomes. To be included in the review, the study population had to include patients undergoing a primary or revision spinal procedure. These included anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), anterior/posterior cervical fusion, laminectomy/decompression, anterior/posterior lumbar decompression with fusion, discectomy, and spinal deformity surgery (spine arthrodesis).

resultsStudies were variable in defining surgeon volume thresholds. Higher surgeon volume was associated with a significantly lower risk of postoperative complications, a lower length of stay (LOS), lower cost of hospital stay and a lower risk of readmissions and reoperations/revisions.

conclusionsFindings suggest a trend towards better outcomes for higher volume surgeons; however, further study needs to be carried out to define objective volume thresholds for individual spine surgeries for surgeons to use as a marker of proficiency.

Indexed as

HospitalizationHospitals, High-VolumeHumansLength of StayOrthopedic ProceduresPatient ReadmissionPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationSpineSurgeonsProvider volumeSpineSpine surgerySurgeon volume

Identifiers

PMID29344731
OpenAlexW2783374044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.