ArticleCureus2025
A Multicenter Comparative Study of Neurosurgical and Orthopedic Spine Services for the Management of Spinal Conditions at Level I Trauma Centers.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpinal conditions are commonly managed by both neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons, but differences in clinical approaches and outcomes remain underexplored.
objectiveThe objective of the study is to compare patient demographics, consultation patterns, surgical techniques, and early postoperative outcomes between neurosurgery and orthopedic spine services at Level I trauma centers. METHODOLOGY: This retrospective multicenter study analyzed 690 patients who presented with spinal conditions and were treated either by neurosurgery (n = 355; 51.5%) or orthopedic (n = 335; 48.5%) spine services. Variables assessed included age, gender, injury type, spinal region involved, imaging utilization, management type, surgical techniques, operative duration, hospital stay, complications, ICU admissions, and discharge status. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, US). Chi-squared and independent t-tests compared categorical and continuous variables, respectively, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsMean patient age was comparable between groups (47.25 ± 16.4 years in neurosurgery vs. 45.80 ± 15.9 years in orthopedics, p = 0.231). Male patients comprised 238 (67.04%) in neurosurgery and 223 (66.57%) in orthopedics (p = 0.911). Traumatic injuries accounted for 203 (57.18%) neurosurgery and 188 (56.12%) orthopedic cases (p = 0.782). Lumbar spine involvement was higher in orthopedic patients with 151 (45.07%) vs. 132 (37.18%) in neurosurgery (p = 0.042). Operative management was performed in 195 (54.93%) neurosurgical and 181 (54.03%) orthopedic patients (p = 0.811). Neurosurgeons more frequently performed decompression with fusion (132, 67.69% vs. 101, 55.80%, p = 0.017) and used anterior or combined approaches (106, 54.36% vs. 70, 38.67%, p = 0.002), with longer mean operative times (152.6 ± 37.5 minutes vs. 138.9 ± 34.2 minutes, p = 0.003). Postoperative complications occurred in 41 (11.55%) neurosurgical and 36 (10.75%) orthopedic patients (p = 0.735). ICU admissions were similar between the two groups, with 54 patients (15.21%) in the neurosurgery group and 49 patients (14.63%) in the orthopedic group (p = 0.847). Likewise, 30-day readmission rates did not differ significantly, with 12 patients (3.38%) readmitted in the neurosurgery group compared to nine patients (2.69%) in the orthopedic group (p = 0.579).
conclusionDespite differences in surgical approaches, neurosurgery and orthopedic spine services demonstrated comparable consultation patterns and clinical outcomes, supporting multidisciplinary collaboration in trauma care.
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.