Risk factors of epidural hematoma in patients undergoing spinal surgery: a meta-analysis of 29 cohort studies

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted this meta-analysis to identify risk factors for spinal epidural haematoma (SEH) among patients following spinal surgery. METHODS: The authors systematically searched Pub: Med, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles that reported risk factors associated with the development of SEH in patients undergoing spinal surgery from inception to 2 July 2022. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was estimated using a random-effects model for each investigated factor. The evidence of observational studies was classified as high quality (Class I), moderate quality (Class II or III) and low quality (Class IV) based on sample size, Egger’s P value and between-study heterogeneity. In addition, subgroup analyses stratified by study baseline characteristics and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity and the stability of the results. RESULTS: Of 21 791 articles screened, 29 unique cohort studies comprising 150 252 patients were included in the data synthesis. Studies with high-quality evidence showed that older patients (≥60 years) (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.03–1.77) were at higher risk for SEH. Studies with moderate-quality evidence suggested that patients with a BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m² (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10–1.76), hypertension (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.28–2.17), and diabetes (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01–1.55) and those undergoing revision surgery (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.15–3.25) and multilevel procedures (OR, 5.20; 95% CI, 2.89–9.37) were at higher risk for SEH. Meta-analysis revealed no association between tobacco use, operative time, anticoagulant use or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification and SEH. CONCLUSIONS: Obvious risk factors for SEH include four patient-related risk factors, including older age, obesity, hypertension and diabetes, and two surgery-related risk factors, including revision surgery and multilevel procedures. These findings, however, must be interpreted with caution because most of these risk factors had small effect sizes. Nonetheless, they may help clinicians identify high-risk patients to improve prognosis.