↓ Skip to main content

Complications in adult spine deformity surgery: a systematic review of the recent literature with reporting of aggregated incidences

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
Complications in adult spine deformity surgery: a systematic review of the recent literature with reporting of aggregated incidences
Published in
European Spine Journal, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00586-018-5535-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Zanirato, Marco Damilano, Matteo Formica, Andrea Piazzolla, Alessio Lovi, Jorge Hugo Villafañe, Pedro Berjano

Abstract

To review the incidence of perioperative and late complications of surgery for spinal deformity (ASD). Review of the literature. We reviewed recent literature in English to investigate the incidence of complications in ASD surgery in the perioperative (≤ 3 months post-operative) and late (> 3 months post-operative) periods. Randomized-controlled trials, non-randomized trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series published in 2005 or later were included. We divided articles according to surgical technique: open procedures (OP), minimally invasive surgery (MIS), and hybrid procedures (HP). Complications were recorded, grouped by surgical technique, and then classified according to a proposed Grading of Incidence of Complications (IOC). Ninety-six publications reporting on 12,168 patients were included; 68 were level IV of evidence studies, 24 were level III, and 4 level II. Perioperative IOC was 26.5% in OP, 36.4% in HP, and 24.2% in MIS. Late IOC was 11.1% in OP, 15.4% in HP, and 14.0% in MIS. IOC was significantly higher for hybrid procedures compared to both open and MIS procedures. Reported complications of surgery for ASD in the recent literature are frequent (24-36% perioperative plus 11-15% late). Open procedures were the most extensively reported in the literature. Complication rates are similar for OP and MIS. HP presented higher IOC likely due to the combination of OP and MIS respective complications. Small number of studies and heterogeneity in reporting could result in risk of bias in these results. Large-scale registry-based studies can fill this gap in the future. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 35 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 43%
Engineering 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 42 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,589,103
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,504
of 4,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,541
of 331,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#36
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,668 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.