Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36624233›Full record

ArticleActa neurochirurgica2023

Adverse events in neurosurgery: a comprehensive single-center analysis of a prospectively compiled database.

Philip Dao Trong, Arturo Olivares, Ahmed El Damaty, Andreas Unterberg

Open access · hybridFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Philip Dao TrongDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Arturo OlivaresDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ahmed El DamatyDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Andreas UnterbergDepartment of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. Andreas.Unterberg@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID 0000-0003-3742-3288
Heidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo prospectively identify and quantify neurosurgical adverse events (AEs) in a tertiary care hospital.

methodsFrom January 2021 to December 2021, all patients treated in our department received a peer-reviewed AE-evaluation form at discharge. An AE was defined as any event after surgery that resulted in an undesirable clinical outcome, which is not caused by the underlying disease, that prolonged patient stay, resulted in readmission, caused a new neurological deficit, required revision surgery or life-saving intervention, or contributed to death. We considered AEs occurring within 30 days after discharge. AEs were categorized in wound event, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) event, CSF shunt malfunction, post-operative infection, malpositioning of implanted material, new neurological deficit, rebleeding, and surgical goal not achieved and non-neurosurgical AEs.

results2874 patients were included. Most procedures were cranial (45.1%), followed by spinal (33.9%), subdural (7.7%), CSF (7.0%), neuromodulation (4.0%), and other (2.3%). In total, there were 621 AEs shared by 532 patients (18.5%). 80 (2.8%) patients had multiple AEs. Most AEs were non-neurosurgical (222; 8.1%). There were 172 (6%) revision surgeries. Patients receiving cranial interventions had the most AEs (19.1%) although revision surgery was only necessary in 3.1% of patients. Subdural interventions had the highest revision rate (12.6%). The majority of fatalities was admitted as an emergency (81/91 patients, 89%). Ten elective patients had lethal complications, six of them related to surgery (0.2%).

conclusionThis study presents the one-year results of a prospectively compiled AE database. Neurosurgical AEs arose in one in five patients. Although the need for revision surgery was low, the rate of AEs highlights the importance of a systematic AE database to deliver continued high-quality in a high-volume center.

Indexed as

NeurosurgeryHospitalizationHumansNeurosurgical ProceduresPostoperative ComplicationsSpineAdverse eventsMorbidity and mortalityNeurosurgeryPost-operative complicationsQuality management

Identifiers

PMID36624233
PMCPMC10006024
OpenAlexW4313880433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read69
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.