ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2026
Shaping the future of blood management in metastatic spine tumor surgery: the case for cell-salvaged transfusion with a propensity-matched study.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Blood loss is a major perioperative concern in metastatic spine tumor surgery (MSTS). Allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) remains the standard method of blood replacement but is associated with well-recognised complications. Salvaged blood transfusion (SBT) using intraoperative cell salvage may mitigate many of these risks; however, its oncological safety and long-term outcomes in MSTS remain controversial. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of patients who underwent MSTS between 2014 and 2017. Clinical outcomes included overall survival (OS) and tumor progression (TP), assessed using RECIST (version 1.1). A propensity score-matched cohort was generated using relevant predictors of treatment allocation and outcomes of interest to enable comparison between patients receiving SBT and ABT. Results: A total of 98 patients (mean age 60 years) were included, of whom 33 received SBT, 39 received ABT, and 26 received no blood transfusion. Median estimated blood loss was 400 mL (IQR 200-900 mL), and median blood transfusion volume was 328.5 mL (IQR 0-1042 mL). Propensity score matching yielded 30 patients in the ABT group and 28 in the SBT group. There was no significant difference in overall survival between patients receiving SBT and ABT (p=.250). Importantly, SBT was not associated with an increased risk of 4-year TP (p=.908). Conclusions: SBT demonstrates comparable long-term survival and TP outcomes to ABT in patients undergoing MSTS, while avoiding the known complications associated with ABT. This study represents the first long-term propensity score-matched analysis of SBT in MSTS, supporting its oncological safety and clinical utility in contemporary spine oncology practice.
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.