ArticleNeurosurgical review2025
Impact of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy on outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastasis: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpinal metastasis, common in advanced cancer cases, frequently require surgical intervention to improve quality of life by stabilizing the spine and alleviating neural compression. The perioperative transfusion strategies in this setting is under debate. Evidence specific to spinal metastasis surgery remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategy on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastasis.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted with patients who underwent surgery for spinal metastasis. Using propensity score matching (PSM), patients were matched into restrictive and liberal transfusion groups, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Postoperative outcomes, including 30-day complications, hospital stay, and survival rates at 3 months and 1 year, were compared between the groups.
resultsAmong 483 patients, 303 received at least one unit of red blood cells during hospitalization. Of these, 125 (41.3%) were in the restrictive transfusion group, and 178 (58.7%) in the liberal transfusion group. After PSM, 70 patients in each group were matched 1:1, ensuring comparable baseline characteristics. Post-matching analysis revealed no significant differences between the groups in key outcomes: 3-month survival (84% vs. 83%, P = 0.820), 1-year survival (46% vs. 51%, P = 0.499), 30-day postoperative complications (19% vs. 23%, P = 0.532), and median length of stay (15 [IQR, 11-18] days vs. 13 [IQR, 11-17] days, P = 0.316).
conclusionsOur study supports using a restrictive transfusion strategy with a target nadir Hb level of 7-8 g/dL for spinal metastasis surgery. This approach ensures adequate oxygen delivery while minimizing unnecessary transfusions and associated risks. Future studies should validate these findings and further explore patient-centered outcomes to refine transfusion strategy in high-risk oncology patients. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40434521What 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.