Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Validated intraoperative bleeding severity scale (VIBe) for hemostasis assessment in lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIntraoperative bleeding remains a major challenge in lumbar spine surgery, with conventional assessment methods lacking standardization. The Validated Intraoperative Bleeding Severity Scale (VIBe) is a structured five-grade tool developed to objectively assess bleeding severity across surgical fields. This study evaluated the clinical utility of VIBe in lumbar spinal fusion by comparing it with conventional bleeding metrics across various hemostatic strategies, including hypotensive anesthesia and local hemostatic agent use.
methodsIn this prospective, randomized controlled trial, 70 patients undergoing elective posterior lumbar decompression and fusion were randomized to normotensive or hypotensive anesthesia. Each group was further divided by hemostatic strategy: active agents alone or a combination of active and passive agents. VIBe grades were independently recorded by the surgeon and assistant for each bleeding site. Conventional bleeding metrics-including estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion volume, and drain output-were also collected. Between group comparisons and inter-rater agreement were assessed, and correlation analysis was performed to evaluate the association between the VIBe and conventional bleeding metrics.
resultsVIBe grades improved significantly after hemostasis in all patients (p < 0.001). Although intraoperative blood pressures were significantly lower in the hypotensive group, there were no significant differences in transfusion volume, EBL, drain output, or VIBe-based assessments. Outcomes were also comparable between patients receiving combined versus active-only hemostatic agents. Inter-rater agreement for VIBe scores before hemostasis, after hemostasis, and for score changes was near-perfect (κ = 0.934, 0.834, and 0.856 respectively, all p < 0.001). Operator-assigned VIBe scores significantly correlated with EBL (ρ = 0.305, p = 0.010) and transfusion volume (ρ = 0.264, p = 0.027); assistant correlated with EBL (ρ = 0.284, p = 0.017).
conclusionVIBe is a reliable and reproducible tool for intraoperative bleeding assessment in lumbar spine fusion. Active hemostatic agents were effective, and the addition of passive agents offered no measurable advantage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40911074What 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.