Evidence mapPaperPMID 42438697Full record

ArticleOrthopedic reviews2026

Intraoperative Cell Salvage in Spine Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Reduced Allogeneic Transfusion with Implications for Orthopedic and Sports Practice.

Moaath Abdulaziz Alamir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Moaath Abdulaziz AlamirDepartment of surgery and anesthesia College of Medicine, Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Spine surgery, particularly multilevel fusion and deformity correction, is associated with substantial intraoperative blood loss. The effectiveness of intraoperative cell salvage in reducing allogeneic transfusion in this setting remains uncertain. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 2026. Randomized and non-randomized comparative studies evaluating intraoperative cell salvage in spine surgery were included. Primary outcomes were allogeneic transfusion rate and number of transfused units. Random-effects models were used to pool risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD). Results: Four comparative studies involving 360 patients were included, of which two contributed to the meta-analysis of transfusion rate and three to transfused units. Intraoperative cell salvage was significantly associated with a reduced risk of allogeneic transfusion (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35-0.76; I² = 0%), with a consistent direction of effect across studies. A modest reduction in transfused units was also observed (MD, -0.40 units; 95% CI, -0.66 to -0.14; I² = 41%). Secondary outcomes were heterogeneous and did not demonstrate consistent effects across studies. Conclusion: Intraoperative cell salvage may reduce exposure to allogeneic transfusion in spine surgery, with a more limited effect on transfusion volume. Its clinical benefit appears most relevant in procedures with high expected blood loss. However, the strength of the evidence is constrained by the small number of comparative studies, limited statistical power, and inclusion of non-randomized designs. Further adequately powered randomized trials are required to better define its role.

Indexed as

Blood lossCell salvageMeta-analysisSpine surgeryTransfusion

Identifiers

PMID42438697
PMCPMC13356933

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.