ArticleSpine deformity2025
Does transitioning to a dual surgeon approach improve outcomes for posterior spinal fusion of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and neuromuscular scoliosis?
Article in Spine deformity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Dual vs. single surgeon in spinal deformity correction: a meta-analysis.Spine deformity · 2026Pooled it
- Operation time and outcomes in distal radius fracture fixation: a retrospective analysis of single- vs. dual-surgeon procedures in 163 cases.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
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
STUDY
designRetrospective, chart review. PURPOSE: Improvements in operative time, blood loss, and length of stay (LOS) when using a dual surgeon approach for the treatment of scoliosis have been suggested in the literature; however, the external validity of these findings has been debated. In this study, we examined the impact of transitioning from a single surgeon to a dual surgeon approach in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and neuromuscular scoliosis (NMS) across non-contemporary periods at a single institution.
methodsThrough a retrospective chart review we identified 208 adolescent patients who underwent spinal fusion for the treatment of AIS or NMS between November 2015 and January 2022. The 73 cases meeting inclusion criteria were analyzed for operative time, blood loss, pre-and post-operative Cobb angles, and hospital length of stay.
resultsThe dual surgeon AIS group was found to have a shorter hospital (3.6 vs. 5.2 days, p < 0.001) and ICU length of stay (0.3 vs. 3.7 days, p < 0.001), greater Cobb angle correction (35.6 vs. 23.3 degrees, p < 0.001), and lower transfusion requirement compared to the single surgeon AIS group (0.1 vs. 0.7 units, p = 0.003). Total operative time and estimated blood loss (EBL) were not significantly different. The dual surgeon NMS group only showed shorter ICU length of stay (2.9 vs. 9.1 days, p = 0.043).
conclusionsUtilizing a dual surgeon approach for AIS patients could improve hospital and ICU length of stay, blood transfusion requirements, and Cobb angle correction without an increase in operative time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective, comparative study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39955478What 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.