• Eur Spine J · Apr 2024

    Review Meta Analysis

    Assessing the predictive power of the GAP score on mechanical complications: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Minseong Cho, Sanghoon Lee, and Ho-Joong Kim.
    • Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.
    • Eur Spine J. 2024 Apr 1; 33 (4): 131113191311-1319.

    PurposeThe 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.MethodsA 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).ResultsEleven 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.ConclusionThe GAP score offers predictive value for the risk of mechanical complications.© 2024. The Author(s).

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.