ArticleSpine deformity2023
Does a dedicated "Scoliosis Team" and surgical standardization improve outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery and is it reproducible?
Article in Spine deformity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to determine if standardization improves adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) surgery outcomes and whether it is transferrable between institutions.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted of AIS patients operated between 2009 and 2021 at two institutions (IA and IB). Each institution consisted of a non-standardized (NST) and standardized group (ST). In 2015, surgeons changed institutions (IA- > IB). Reproducibility was determined between institutions. Median and interquartile ranges (IQR), Kruskal-Wallis, and χ
results500 consecutive AIS patients were included. Age (p = 0.06), body mass index (p = 0.74), preoperative Cobb angle (p = 0.53), and levels fused (p = 0.94) were similar between institutions. IA-ST and IB-ST had lower blood loss (p < 0.001) and shorter surgical time (p < 0.001). IB-ST had significantly shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) and transfusion rate (p = 0.007) than IB-NST. Standardized protocols in IB-ST reduced costs by 18.7%, significantly lowering hospital costs from $74,794.05 in IB-NST to $60,778.60 for IB-ST (p < 0.001). Annual analysis of surgical time revealed while implementation of standardized protocols decreased operative time within IA, when surgeons transitioned to IB, and upon standardization, IB operative time values decreased once again, and continued to decrease annually. Additions to standardized protocol in IB temporarily affected the operative time, before stabilizing.
conclusionSurgeon-led standardized AIS approach and streamlined surgical steps improve outcomes and efficiency, is transferrable between institutions, and adjusts to additional protocol changes.
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.