ReviewSurgical neurology international2021
A perspective on wrong level, wrong side, and wrong site spine surgery.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Three-Dimensional Navigation versus Conventional Fluoroscopy for Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy: An Exploratory Cohort Comparison.Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery · 2026Article
- Attitudes Toward Patient Safety in Operating Rooms: Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the French Version of the Operating Room Management Attitudes Questionnaire (ORMAQ).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Accuracy in spinal level determination, including transitional vertebrae: an ASReview supported systematic review.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 · 2026Review
- Article
- Usability Study of Augmented Reality Visualization Modalities on Localization Accuracy in the Head and Neck: Randomized Crossover Trial.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- From error to prevention of wrong-level spine surgery: a review.Patient safety in surgery · 2025Review
- The utility of preoperative computed tomography-guided screw marking in thoracic spine surgery.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Accurate Preoperative Localization of Thoracolumbar Disc Extrusion in Dogs: A Prospective Controlled Study.Veterinary sciences · 2024Article
- Fluoroscopy- and CT-Guided Gold Fiducial Marker Placement for Intraoperative Localization during Spinal Surgery: Review of 179 Cases at a Single Institution-Technique and Safety Profile.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFour of the most common "errors" in spine surgery include: operating on the wrong patient, doing the wrong procedure, performing wrong-level surgery (WLS), and/or performing wrong-sided surgery (WSS). Although preoperative verification protocols (i.e. Universal Protocol, routine Time-Outs, and using the 3 R's (i.e. right patient, right procedure, right level/side)) have largely limited the first two "errors," WLS and WSS still occur with an unacceptably high frequency.
methodsIn 20 studies, we identified the predominant factors contributing to WLS/WSS; unusual/anatomical anomalies/variants (i.e. sacralized lumbar vertebrae. lumbarized sacral vertebra, Klippel-Feil vertebrae, block vertebrae, butterfly vertebrae, obesity/morbid obesity), inadequate/poor interpretation of X-rays/fluoroscopic intraoperative images, and failure to follow different verification protocols.
results"Human error" was another major risk factor contributing to the failure to operate at the correct level/side (WLS/WSS). Factors comprising "human error" included; surgeon/staff fatigue, rushing, emergency circumstances, lack of communication, hierarchical behavior in the operating room, and failure to "speak up".
conclusionUtilizing the Universal Protocol, routine Time Outs, and the 3 R's largelly avoid operating on the wrong spine patient, and performing the wrong procedure. However, these guidelines have not yet sufficiently reduced the frequently of WLS and WSS. Greater recognition of the potential pitfalls contributing to WLS/WSS as reviewed in this perspective should better equip spine surgeons to avert/limit such "errors" in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.