SynthesisSpine deformity2026
Single- versus dual-surgeon outcomes in adult and pediatric spinal deformity patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Spine deformity, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe current body of literature has examined both pediatric and adult patients in concert with respect to single- versus dual-surgeon treatment of spinal deformity; however, to our knowledge, pediatric and adult outcomes have not yet been reported independently. We hypothesize that the favorable outcomes seen in pediatric spine deformity with a dual-surgeon approach may also extend to adult spinal deformity patients.
methodsDatabases were searched for studies involving surgeries around spinal deformities and the use of dual or single surgeons. For both dual- and single-surgeon group, details on rates of complications, operating room times, lengths of stay, blood loss, rates of transfusion, and reoperation rates were recorded. Categorical variables were reported in pooled odds ratio (OR) and continuous variables were reported in standardized mean difference (SMD). Alpha value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsIn adults, the dual-surgeon approach was associated with decreased risk of complications (OR = 0.31, 95% CI, 0.21-0.46; p < 0.01). In pediatrics, the dual-surgeon approach was associated with a decreased length of stay (SMD = -0.93 days, 95% CI: -1.25 - -0.61; p < 0.01) and operating time (SMD = -82.20 min, 95% CI: -114.28 - -51.32; p < 0.01).
conclusionThe results of this study demonstrated statistically significant decrease in length of stay and operative duration with a dual-surgeon team in pediatric patients. In adults, a dual-surgeon team had correlated with a significant decreased rate of complications. There exists a lack of sufficient adult data to determine differences in operative duration, length of stay, and blood loss. Further investigation may utilize larger datasets to better understand the impacts of the dual-surgeon approach for both adult and pediatric populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41654682What 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.