ReviewPatient safety in surgery2025
Exploring strategies to enhance patient safety in spine surgery: a review.
Review in Patient safety in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy with lymph node dissection in pancreatic and periampullary adenocarcinoma; a retrospective cohort study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Preliminary evaluation of mixed reality navigation with single-vertebra registration in spinal surgery.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Therapeutic exercise following lumbar spine surgery: a narrative review.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- From error to prevention of wrong-level spine surgery: a review.Patient safety in surgery · 2025Review
- Elevating surgical outcomes: a comprehensive analysis of innovative nursing practices in intraoperative care across diverse specialties.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient safety is the foundation of spine surgery, where the intricate nature of spinal procedures and the unique risks involved call for exceptional diligence and comprehensive protocols. In this high-stakes field, developing and implementing rigorous safety protocols is not only vital for minimizing complications but also for achieving the best possible outcomes and strengthening the confidence patients have in their care team. Each patient entrusts their well-being to their surgical team. This trust underscores the responsibility healthcare providers have to prioritize safety at every stage. In spine surgery, thorough preoperative planning, clear communication during informed consent, and vigilant postoperative care are all crucial for creating a safe environment tailored to each patient's needs. A commitment to patient safety requires more than individual efforts; it calls for a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach where surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists, and rehabilitation specialists work closely together. This collaboration ensures that each step of the patient's journey is aligned with best practices for safety and care. This review highlights the critical need for ongoing evaluation and refinement of safety protocols in spine surgery. As surgical techniques and technologies advance, and as patients' needs evolve, healthcare teams must remain responsive, cultivating a culture of safety that is both proactive and adaptable. Continuous investment in quality improvement and research is essential to fine-tune these protocols, ensuring they remain both relevant and effective in addressing the unique challenges of spine surgery. Prioritizing comprehensive safety measures goes beyond improving surgical outcomes; it plays a pivotal role in strengthening the trust and confidence patients have in their healthcare providers. By committing to these robust protocols, we reaffirm our dedication to patient-centered care, enhancing not only patient safety and recovery but also fostering a deeper faith in a healthcare system that places patient well-being at the forefront.
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.