SynthesisSpine deformity2026
Dual vs. single surgeon in spinal deformity correction: a 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background contextSpinal deformity correction is technically demanding and often associated with extended operative time, substantial blood loss, and elevated complication rates. Dual-attending surgeon (DS) models have emerged as a strategy to enhance operative efficiency and patient safety, though published outcomes remain inconsistent. PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of a DS approach compared with a traditional single-attending surgeon (SS) strategy on perioperative and postoperative outcomes in spinal deformity surgery. STUDY DESIGN/
settingMeta-analysis of comparative studies assessing DS versus SS procedures for spinal deformity correction.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar through November 6, 2025. Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria. DS cases were defined as procedures performed by two attending surgeons; SS cases involved one attending assisted by non-attending personnel. Extracted outcomes included operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirements, hospital length of stay, radiographic correction (Cobb angle), complications, readmission, and revision rates.
resultsThe DS approach was associated with significantly reduced operative time (MD - 109.69 min; 95% CI - 145.04 to - 74.34; p < 0.00001), intraoperative blood loss (MD - 308.90 mL; 95% CI - 454.96 to - 162.83; p < 0.00001), and hospital length of stay (MD - 0.99 days; 95% CI - 1.46 to - 0.52; p < 0.00001). Transfusion risk was also lower in DS cases (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.03-0.45; p = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in Cobb angle correction (p = 0.84), readmission rates (p = 0.11), revision rates (p = 0.54), or overall complication rates (p = 0.07). Follow-up durations were similar within individual studies but varied across the included literature.
conclusionsA DS strategy improves operative efficiency and reduces perioperative blood loss and transfusion requirements, while maintaining equivalent radiographic correction and comparable postoperative outcomes versus the SS model. These findings support selective use of DS approaches, particularly for complex or high-risk deformity cases. Further prospective studies with standardized follow-up and economic analyses are needed to clarify long-term value and cost-effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41991812What 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.