Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 26, 2025
Author Spotlight: Scope of LE-ULBD as a Safe, Effective, and Minimally Invasive Approach to Treat Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Published on: February 9, 2024
Dual Versus Single Attending Surgeon Performance of Spinal Deformity Surgery? A Meta-Analysis
Mohammad Daher1, Gaby Kreichati2, Khalil Kharrat3
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA; Faculty of medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon.
Background:
The inclusion of 2 surgeons in spinal deformity surgery is considered beneficial by some. In fact, select studies indicate advantages such as reduced operation time and blood loss. Another observed decreased patient morbidity with a dual-surgeon approach, attributed to shorter operative times and reduced intraoperative blood losses. Therefore, this meta-analysis will assess the benefits of a having 2 surgeons compared to 1 surgeon during spine surgeries.
Methods:
PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (page 1-20) were searched till January 2024. The clinical outcomes evaluated were the incidence of adverse events, the rate of transfusion, reoperation, and surgery-related parameters such as operative room time, length of stay (LOS), and estimated blood loss.
Results:
Thirteen studies were included. A greater rate of complications was seen in patients operated upon by 1 surgeon (odds ratio = 0.50; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.25-0.99, P = 0.05). Furthermore, operative room time (mean differences = -82.73; 95% CI: -111.42 to -54.03, P < 0.001) and LOS (mean differences = -0.91; 95% CI: -1.12 to -0.71, P < 0.001) were reduced in the dual surgeon scenario. No statistically significant difference was shown in the remaining analyzed outcomes.
Conclusions:
The presence of 2 surgeons in the odds ratiowas shown to reduce complications, operative room time, and LOS. More cost-effectiveness studies are needed in order to substantiate the financial advantages associated with the dual-surgeon approach.
