ArticleCureus2023
Optimizing Patient Outcomes in Spinal Surgery: An Investigation Into Anesthesiologists' Case Volume.
Article in Cureus, 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Nearly one million patients in the United States undergo spine surgical procedures annually to seek relief from chronic back and neck pain. A multidisciplinary approach is key to ensuring the efficiency and safety of the surgical process, with the anesthesia team, nursing, surgeon, and healthcare facilities all playing a role. The purpose of this study is to capture potential associations between the anesthesiologists' case volume and patient postoperative outcomes in the early recovery period. Methods A retrospective review of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), lumbar decompression (LD), and lumbar fusion (LF) patients from July 2019 to June 2023 was performed. Anesthesiologists were categorized into low, medium, and high volumes of spine surgical cases. Univariate analysis was performed on patient demographics, intraoperative measures, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) measures, and postoperative measures by anesthesiologist volume. Results This study included 545 ACDF, 815 LD, and 1,144 LF patients. There were no differences between groups in ACDF patients by anesthesiologist volume. When examining patients undergoing LD, there was a difference in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of three or greater (low volume: 41.7% vs. medium volume: 53.7% vs. high volume: 45.0%; p=0.029). When examining patients undergoing LF, there were differences in patients with low temperatures in PACU (low volume: 2.8% vs. medium volume: 7.3% vs. high volume: 4.2%; p=0.044) and the percentage of patients with a 90-day emergency department return (low volume: 7.7% vs. medium volume: 11.9% vs. high volume: 7.0%; p=0.024). Conclusion While this study found a minimal impact of anesthesiologist volume on postoperative outcomes, recent literature has emphasized the critical role of teamwork and specialized surgical teams to enhance efficiency and patient care. Further studies are warranted to identify other variables in anesthesia, nursing, and surgical team workflow that may impact postoperative outcomes in spinal surgeries.
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.