ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2024
Best practices guidelines in the postoperative management of patients who underwent cervical and lumbar fusions.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is a lack of standardization in spine surgery in particular, as relates to postoperative care for the most common spine procedures such as cervical and lumbar fusions. The goal of this study was to develop a standardized postoperative treatment protocol for common spine procedures such as cervical and lumbar fusion to reduce unnecessary visits, imaging studies, and create a standard for all spine surgeons to adhere while maintaining quality. Methods: We developed a best practices protocol (BPP) for postoperative spine care for anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). We compared outcome to retrospective controls (pre-BPP) and a national database [Quality Outcomes Database (QOD)/American Spine Registry (ASR)]. Results: Pre-BPP retrospective controls (n=1,010) were compared to patients enrolled in BPP (n=750). BPP reduced postoperative visits (POV) from 2,201 to 1,061 (52%). Total additional imaging studies computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) beyond standard X-ray were reduced from 192 studies to 57 (70%); 53% for lumbar fusion and 67% for cervical fusion. Comparing pre-BPP to BPP groups for complications, the number of adverse events was reduced by 52% overall; 45% for lumbar fusion, and 62% for cervical fusion. A subset of BPP patients (n=450) with available data were compared to a national registry QOD and ASR where lumbar and cervical fusion patients showed comparable less lengths of stay, lower 3-month complication rates and lower readmission rates. Conclusions: This is one of the first studies to standardize postoperative spine care as a first step towards creating uniformly accepted models for value-based care (VBC) in spine surgery.
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.