Factors associated with spinal fixation mechanical failure after tumor resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 2 Show results of meta-analysis including pooled OR, 95% CI, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias

Prognostic factors	N	OR range	Pooled OR	Pooled 95% CI	Heterogeneity (I²) (%)	Model	p	Sensitivity analysis	Affected study	Publication bias (Egger’s test)
The older versus the younger [3,4,5,6, 8, 11, 18]	7	0.73–2.55	1.01	0.97–1.05	0.0	Fixed	0.634	No effect	None	0.634
The female versus the male [3,4,5,6, 8, 11, 18]	7	0.44–12.75	1.17	0.67–2.04	0.0	Fixed	0.591	No effect	None	0.455
With versus without chemotherapy [3, 6, 11, 18]	4	0.19–2.59	1.77	0.83–3.78	8.8	Fixed	0.142	Effect	Matsumoto, M	0.183
With versus without radiotherapy [3,4,5,6, 8, 11, 18]	8	0.09–10.89	2.56	0.99–6.62	56.0	Random	0.053	No effect	None	0.894
Primary versus metastatic tumor [3, 4, 11]	3	0.57–2.13	0.93	0.46–1.87	0.0	Fixed	0.834	No effect	None	0.750
Thoraciclumbar versus thoracic level [4, 5, 11]	3	1.75–4.25	2.26	1.07–4.77	0.0	Fixed	0.032	No effect	None	0.642
Lumbar versus thoracic level [3,4,5, 11]	4	1.40–7.29	2.49	1.37–4.53	0.0	Fixed	0.003	No effect	None	0.890
Posterior only versus combined approach [3, 11]	2	1.14–4.76	1.46	0.47–4.50	0.0	Fixed	0.514	Effect	Matsumoto, M	–
Multiple versus single vertebrae resection [3,4,5, 8, 11, 18]	6	0.22–2.10	0.97	0.48–1.94	0.0	Fixed	0.930	No effect	None	0.726
thin versus thick rod [4, 11]	2	1.08–1.50	1.27	0.54–2.96	0.0	Fixed	0.587	No effect	None	–
Longer versus shorter constructed length [3, 8, 11, 18]	4	0.91–3.25	1.13	0.79–1.61	47.9	Fixed	0.498	Effect	Wong, Y. C	0.365
With versus without cage subsidence [5, 11]	2	4.05–14.63	5.46	1.48–20.17	0.0	Fixed	0.011	No effect	None	–

ISSN: 1749-799X