ArticleGlobal spine journal2026
Impact of Immunosuppression Type on 30-Day Postoperative Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Retrospective National Cohort Study of 66,162 Patients.
Article in Global spine journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to Letter to the Editor for "Impact of Immunosuppression Type on 30-Day Postoperative Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Retrospective National Cohort Study of 66,162 Patients".Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Comments on "Impact of Immunosuppression Type on 30-Day Postoperative Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Retrospective National Cohort Study of 66,162 Patients".Global spine journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study DesignRetrospective Cohort Study.ObjectivesPerioperative immunosuppression management in spine surgery lacks robust evidence. Most NSQIP-based ACDF models utilize a binary steroid variable, failing to distinguish corticosteroids from biologics or synthetic DMARDs. This study uses the granular NSQIP immunosuppression category and propensity score matching (PSM) to validate these risks.MethodsPrimary ACDF patients were identified in ACS NSQIP (2015-2021; N=66,162). The primary exposure was preoperative corticosteroid use; a secondary analysis utilized the 2021 granular immunosuppression variable (n=9,761). The primary outcome was a 30-day composite adverse event (complication, readmission, reoperation, or mortality). Analysis included multivariable logistic regression and 1:3 PSM.ResultsPreoperative corticosteroid exposure (3.8%) independently predicted the composite outcome (aOR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16-1.56), readmission (aOR 1.37), and medical complications (aOR 1.38; all p<0.001). Risk was driven by sepsis (aOR 2.00), UTI (aOR 1.67), and pneumonia (aOR 1.44), while wound complications and reoperation rates were not elevated. PSM confirmed these findings and revealed a mortality signal (aOR 2.10, p=0.03). Among 2021 patients, corticosteroids significantly increased risk (aOR 1.95; p=0.004), whereas biologic and synthetic DMARDs showed no significant elevation, though these subgroups were severely underpowered (<10%).ConclusionsCorticosteroid use is independently associated with increased 30-day infectious complications, readmission, and mortality following ACDF. Null findings for biologics and synthetic DMARDs reflect inadequate power rather than proven safety. Perioperative risk modification should prioritize minimizing corticosteroid burden over the cessation of biologic therapies.
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.