Search

Purpose: Sarcopenia is considered to be an important predictor of adverse outcomes following spinal surgery, but the specific relationship between the two is not clear. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to systematically review all relevant studies to evaluate the impact of sarcopenia on spinal surgery outcomes. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for relevant articles published on or before January 9, 2023. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated in a random effects meta-analysis. The main outcome was the risk of adverse outcomes after spinal surgery, including adverse events and mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the impact of sarcopenia on spinal surgery outcomes. In addition, we also conducted a subgroup analysis and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses to explore the main sources of heterogeneity and the stability of the results. Results: Twenty-four cohort studies, with a total of 243,453 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that sarcopenia was significantly associated with adverse events (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.17–2.27, P < 0.001) but was no significantly associated with mortality (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.93–1.46, P = 0.180), infection (OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.95–5.26, P < 0.001), 30-day reoperation (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92–2.36, P = 0.413), deep vein thrombosis (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.69–4.61, P = 0.234), postoperative home discharge (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26–1.37, P = 0.002) and blood transfusion (OR 3.28, 95% CI 0.74–14.64, P = 0.015). Conclusion: The current meta-analysis showed that patients with sarcopenia have an increased risk of adverse events and mortality after spinal surgery. However, these results must be carefully interpreted because the number of studies included is small and the studies are significantly different. These findings may help to increase the clinicians' awareness of the risks concerning patients with sarcopenia to improve their prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The authors conducted this meta-analysis to identify risk factors for spinal epidural haematoma (SEH) among patients following spinal surgery., Methods: The authors systematically searched Pub: Med, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles that reported risk factors associated with the development of SEH in patients undergoing spinal surgery from inception to 2 July 2022. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was estimated using a random-effects model for each investigated factor. The evidence of observational studies was classified as high quality (Class I), moderate quality (Class II or III) and low quality (Class IV) based on sample size, Egger's P value and between-study heterogeneity. In addition, subgroup analyses stratified by study baseline characteristics and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity and the stability of the results., Results: Of 21 791 articles screened, 29 unique cohort studies comprising 150 252 patients were included in the data synthesis. Studies with high-quality evidence showed that older patients (≥60 years) (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.03-1.77) were at higher risk for SEH. Studies with moderate-quality evidence suggested that patients with a BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m² (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.76), hypertension (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.28-2.17), and diabetes (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55) and those undergoing revision surgery (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.15-3.25) and multilevel procedures (OR, 5.20; 95% CI, 2.89-9.37) were at higher risk for SEH. Meta-analysis revealed no association between tobacco use, operative time, anticoagulant use or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification and SEH., Conclusions: Obvious risk factors for SEH include four patient-related risk factors, including older age, obesity, hypertension and diabetes, and two surgery-related risk factors, including revision surgery and multilevel procedures. These findings, however, must be interpreted with caution because most of these risk factors had small effect sizes. Nonetheless, they may help clinicians identify high-risk patients to improve prognosis., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)