SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Efficacy and safety of intraoperative red blood cell salvage transfusion for spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinal deformity surgery is associated with substantial blood loss and high transfusion requirements, exposing patients to the risks of allogeneic blood transfusion. Intraoperative cell salvage (ICS) is widely used in patient blood management strategies, yet its clinical efficacy and safety in spinal deformity surgery, particularly in the context of contemporary antifibrinolysis and restrictive transfusion parameters, remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing spinal deformity surgery performed with versus without ICS. PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to December 2025. Primary outcomes included transfusion volume requirements (intraoperative, postoperative, total perioperative), postoperative day 1 (POD1) hemoglobin and hematocrit, and overall complications. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients transfused, transfusion-related costs, and length of hospital stay. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using restricted maximum likelihood estimation with Hartung-Knapp adjustments. Twenty-two studies comprising 2977 patients (ICS: 1851; control: 1126) were included. ICS was not associated with reductions in intraoperative (SMD 0.86, 95% CI -0.24-1.96) or total perioperative transfusion volume (SMD 1.15, 95% CI -0.75-3.05), nor with a lower likelihood of receiving any perioperative transfusion. However, ICS was associated with a modest reduction in postoperative transfusion volume (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.04-0.46) and higher POD1 hemoglobin (MD -0.42 g/dL, 95% CI -0.76--0.07). No significant differences were observed in overall complications, transfusion-related costs, or length of hospital stay. In contemporary spinal deformity surgery, ICS does not meaningfully reduce overall transfusion exposure but is associated with improved early postoperative erythrocyte reserve. These findings suggest that ICS functions as a transient physiologic buffer rather than a transfusion-avoidance strategy. Its routine use is unlikely to provide substantial benefit, and future studies should explore a selective, risk-adapted role for ICS in patients with anticipated major blood loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42850454What 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.