European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024
Assessing the predictive power of the GAP score on mechanical complications: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cho Minseong, Lee Sanghoon, Kim Ho-Joong
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The prevention of mechanical complications (MC) is a major concern in adult spinal deformity (ASD) correction surgery; thus, the global alignment and proportion (GAP) score was developed to assess MC risk. Numerous studies have clarified the validity of the GAP score, but their contradictory results have prevented researchers from reaching compelling conclusions. This study aimed to analyze the predictive power of the GAP score on MC via a meta-analysis.
METHODS: A total of 1,617 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Studies relevant to the GAP score and MC were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL and screened according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The GAP score categories of the patients and their MC/revision surgery status were collected. The data collected for the meta-analysis of odds ratios (OR) included the number of patients in the GAP score subgroups and their MC/revision surgery status. To calculate the OR, three GAP score subgroups were combined into two groups; hence, the analysis was conducted twice (gap proportioned [GAP-P] and higher groups, and gap severely disproportioned [GAP-SD] and lower groups).
RESULTS: Eleven studies were collected; of them, revision surgery data were available for seven. The proportion of MC in the studies was 27.7-60.6%, while that of revision surgery was 11.7-34.9%. In the meta-analysis of the GAP-P and higher score groups, the difference in MC ratio was significant (OR = 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20-6.67; P = 0.02), whereas that for revision surgery was not. For the GAP-SD and lower score groups, the GAP-SD group had significantly higher proportions of both MC (OR = 2.65; 95% CI = 1.57-4.45; P < 0.001) and revision surgery (OR = 2.27; 95% CI = 1.33-3.88; P = 0.003). Publication bias was significant only in the latter MC analysis.
CONCLUSION: The GAP score offers predictive value for the risk of mechanical complications.
METHODS: A total of 1,617 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Studies relevant to the GAP score and MC were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL and screened according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The GAP score categories of the patients and their MC/revision surgery status were collected. The data collected for the meta-analysis of odds ratios (OR) included the number of patients in the GAP score subgroups and their MC/revision surgery status. To calculate the OR, three GAP score subgroups were combined into two groups; hence, the analysis was conducted twice (gap proportioned [GAP-P] and higher groups, and gap severely disproportioned [GAP-SD] and lower groups).
RESULTS: Eleven studies were collected; of them, revision surgery data were available for seven. The proportion of MC in the studies was 27.7-60.6%, while that of revision surgery was 11.7-34.9%. In the meta-analysis of the GAP-P and higher score groups, the difference in MC ratio was significant (OR = 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20-6.67; P = 0.02), whereas that for revision surgery was not. For the GAP-SD and lower score groups, the GAP-SD group had significantly higher proportions of both MC (OR = 2.65; 95% CI = 1.57-4.45; P < 0.001) and revision surgery (OR = 2.27; 95% CI = 1.33-3.88; P = 0.003). Publication bias was significant only in the latter MC analysis.
CONCLUSION: The GAP score offers predictive value for the risk of mechanical complications.