ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2022
Blood loss in total
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Total En Bloc Spondylectomy in Modern Spine Oncology: Selection-Relevant Survival Signals and Treatment Burden in a Single-Center Cohort.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Is Less More? Limited Surgery Is Insufficient in the Treatment of Spinal Hydatid Cysts.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Total En Bloc Spondylectomy for Thoracic (T8) Spinal Metastasis of Renal Cell Carcinoma - A Case Report and Review of Literature.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) is a widely accepted surgical technique for primary spinal bone tumours but is frequently accompanied by substantial peri-operative blood loss. Prior studies have reported estimated blood loss (EBL) can reach up to 3,200 mL. The aim of this study is to estimate the blood loss during TES procedures performed in the last ten years at our tertiary referral centre and compare EBL with actual blood loss (ABL). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all cases managed surgically with TES referred to our centre between 2005 and 2015. We recorded the oncological characteristics of each tumour and surgical management in terms of resection margins, operative duration and instrumentation. Data relating to peri-operative blood loss was also recorded including an estimation of total blood loss, the use of cell salvage where applicable and transfusion rates. Results: A total of 21 patients were found to meet our inclusion criteria. There were 11 men and 10 women, with a median age of 40 years. The mean total ABL was 3,310 mL. Total operation time ranged from 6.53 to 19.7 h. Compared to ABL, in 59% of cases EBL had been underestimated by an average of 78% by volume. The EBL of the remaining 41% cases had been overestimated by 43%. This was not statistically significant (P=0.373). Cell salvage was used in 62% patients with a mean blood loss of 2,845 mL (884-4,939 mL) and transfusion of 3.8 units (0-12 units) versus 4,069 mL (297-8,335 mL) and 9.3 units (0-18 units) in those not managed with cell salvage. There was no significant difference in ABL between the cell salvage and non-cell salvage groups. Conclusions: We report one of the largest case series in TES for primary bone tumours. EBL is not a reliable predictor for ABL. A large blood loss should be anticipated and use of cell salvage is recommended.
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.