The impact of sarcopenia on the incidence of postoperative outcomes following spine surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Purpose

Sarcopenia is considered to be an important predictor of adverse outcomes following spinal surgery, but the specific relationship between the two is not clear. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to systematically review all relevant studies to evaluate the impact of sarcopenia on spinal surgery outcomes.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for relevant articles published on or before January 9, 2023. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated in a random effects meta-analysis. The main outcome was the risk of adverse outcomes after spinal surgery, including adverse events and mortality. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the impact of sarcopenia on spinal surgery outcomes. In addition, we also conducted a subgroup analysis and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses to explore the main sources of heterogeneity and the stability of the results.

Results

Twenty-four cohort studies, with a total of 243,453 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that sarcopenia was significantly associated with adverse events (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.17–2.27, P < 0.001) but was no significantly associated with mortality (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.93–1.46, P = 0.180), infection (OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.95–5.26, P < 0.001), 30-day reoperation (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92–2.36, P = 0.413), deep vein thrombosis (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.69–4.61, P = 0.234), postoperative home discharge (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26–1.37, P = 0.002) and blood transfusion (OR 3.28, 95% CI 0.74–14.64, P = 0.015).

Conclusion

The current meta-analysis showed that patients with sarcopenia have an increased risk of adverse events and mortality after spinal surgery. However, these results must be carefully interpreted because the number of studies included is small and the studies are significantly different. These findings may help to increase the clinicians’ awareness of the risks concerning patients with sarcopenia to improve their prognosis.

Introduction

Sarcopenia is a skeletal muscle disease that progresses with age and involves accelerated loss of muscle mass and function, including osteoporosis, fall proneness, weakness, dysfunction and death [1]. The occurrence of sarcopenia is related not only to age but also to a series of long-term diseases. Its causes mainly include muscle anabolism disorder, inflammation, malnutrition, insulin resistance, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress and so on [2]. Clinical data show that sarcopenia is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications, reoperation, longer hospital stay, and perioperative morbidity and mortality [3–6]. It usually occurs during the life course of elderly individuals.

In recent years, due to COVID-19 and the increase in the proportion of aging adults worldwide, the prevalence of sarcopenia has increased [7]. Concurrently, there has been an increased frequency of combined cases of spinal disease and sarcopenia. Spinal diseases primarily affect the elderly population and can result in trunk and/or limb pain, paralysis, and/or deformities, ultimately disrupting their motor function. Spinal surgery is a common treatment for most spinal diseases [8], and the factors affecting its prognosis have always been one of the main research directions of spinal surgery. Studies have shown that sarcopenia has been increasingly recognized as an important predictive factor for adverse outcomes following complex spinal surgery [9]. Therefore, there is a need for further analysis and evaluation of the predictive value of sarcopenia for adverse postoperative outcomes of spinal surgery to enable clinical practitioners to identify patients at risk of experiencing adverse outcomes following spinal surgery and implement early interventions to reduce the incidence of postoperative adverse events.

An increasing number of studies have begun to focus on the effects of sarcopenia on spinal surgery patients. Zakaria, H.M. et al. found that sarcopenia can predict postoperative mortality, adverse events and infection in patients with spinal metastases who undergo thoracolumbar revision surgery [4, 5]. In addition, Hirase, T. et al. reported that sarcopenia can also predict the incidence of deep venous thrombosis in thoracolumbar revision surgery patients [5]. However, some studies have found different conclusions. Barile, F. et al. found that there was no significant correlation between sarcopenia and the incidence of infection and adverse events after posterior lumbar fusion [10]. Furthermore, the study by Brinkmann, E. J. et al. showed that in patients with spinal tumors, there was no significant correlation between sarcopenia and mortality, infection or reoperation after tumor resection [11].

Flexman, A. M. et al. found an unreliable correlation between sarcopenia and adverse health outcomes [2] that may have resulted from differences in the definition of sarcopenia and methods for measuring postoperative outcomes. In addition, the study population and the type of surgery may also be factors that affect the prediction of the incidence of adverse events after spinal surgery [9]. Understanding the importance and relevance of sarcopenia as a risk factor for patients undergoing spinal surgery, as well as better assessing the risk of having a poor prognosis, will help surgeons to optimize treatment. To solve this problem, we conducted this meta-analysis. This meta-analysis systematically reviews previous related studies to evaluate the impact of sarcopenia on the outcome of spinal surgery.

PICO:

1. P (Population): Patients ≥18 years of age undergoing spinal surgery

2. I (Intervention): Patients diagnosed with sarcopenia

3. C (Comparison): Patients not diagnosed with sarcopenia

4. O (Outcome): Postoperative outcomes such as adverse events and mortality

Methods

Standard protocol approvals, registrations, and patient consent

This study was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines [12] and the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines [13]. The protocol was registered on the website https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/(Registration number: CRD42023406667).

Data sources and search strategy

Two independent investigators systematically searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library from database inception to January 9, 2023, without any language or publication time limitations. We used medical subject headings (MeSH) in our search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library and Embase subject headings (Emtree) in our search of Embase, in addition to free-text words (including closely related words or synonyms) related to spinal surgery, sarcopenia and postoperative complications. The search strategy used the following terms: ("Laminectomy" or "Spin*/surgery" or "Spinal Fusion" or "Spinal Cord Diseases/surgery" or "Laminoplasty" or "Diskectomy" or "Kyphoplasty" or "Cementoplasty" or "Spinal Fractur*" or "Spinal Injur*" or "Spinal Cord Injuries" or "Vertebroplasty" or "Foraminotomy") and ("Sarcopenia" or "Muscular Atrophy" or "Muscle Hypotonia" or "Dystonia" or "Muscle, Skeletal/abnormalities" or "Muscular Disorders, Atrophic" or "Muscle Weakness" or "Muscle Strength" or "Physical Fitness" or "Geriatric Assessment") (eTable 1 in S1 File). Additionally, we manually searched the reference list of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses for missing papers. When the same cohort was described in multiple articles, only the most recent article or the article that included the largest number of participants was included.

Citations from the initial search were downloaded and merged by using Endnote X9 software, and duplicate records were identified and manually deleted. In accordance with the PICOS guidelines, six investigators independently reviewed the titles and abstracts to identify studies eligible for inclusion. In the event of disagreement, the final decision was made through consultation with two senior reviewers.

Study selection

Potential studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they met the following preestablished inclusion/exclusion criteria:

1. Participant: patients ≥18 years of age who underwent spinal surgery.

2. Exposure: patients with sarcopenia.

3. Comparator: patients without sarcopenia.

4. Outcome: Adverse events and mortality were the primary outcomes, while other complications (postoperative infection, reoperation, deep venous thrombosis, blood transfusion, readmission) were the secondary outcomes. The effect size was presented as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

5. Study design: A prospective or retrospective cohort study.

We excluded conference papers, reported individual cases and systematic reviews, or studies that did not provide sufficient data.

Data extraction

Two researchers used a predesigned spreadsheet to extract data from each included study. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer. The following data were extracted: first author, publication year, types of study, age, average body mass index (BMI), geographic regions, follow-up, sample size, percentage of women, type and site of operation, definitions and measurements of sarcopenia, outcomes, reported OR and adjusted variables.

Methodological quality assessment

Two authors independently assessed the methodological quality of each qualified study using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) [14]. The scale covers three domains, including patient representativeness, exposure and outcome determination, and follow-up adequacy. The total score for each study was 9. A score ≥ 8 indicates high quality (low bias risk) [15].

Statistical analysis

All analyses were conducted using Stata statistical software (version 12.0; Stata, University Station, Texas, USA). Considering the heterogeneity between patient baselines, a fixed-effect model was used [16]. A fully adjusted effect estimate (OR) of the correlation between sarcopenia and the surgical outcomes was used to derive pooled risk estimates described in a forest plot. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated by the Cochrane Q test and I² statistic. When I² ≥ 50% or P < 0.05, heterogeneity was determined to be statistically significant [16]. To explore the source of heterogeneity in the study, we performed a series of subgroup analyses according to geographical regions (China, USA, and other areas), sample sizes (≤100 individuals, 100–200 individuals or ≥200 individuals), average age (≤65 years, 65–70 years, ≥70 years), average BMI (18.5–24.9 kg/m², 25–29.9 kg/m², ≥30 kg/m²), sex (male or female), measurement of sarcopenia (NTPA, SMI or other methods), follow-up period (≤12 months, >12 months), type of surgery (thoracic or lumbar spine) and the quality of the study (low or high). The symmetry of the funnel chart was evaluated visually and combined with Begg’s and Egger’s tests to evaluate publication bias. Begg’s and Egger’s tests and visual examination of funnel plot asymmetry were used to evaluate publication bias. We used Duvall & Tweedie’s trim-and-fill method to further adjust the risk estimate to assess the potential impact of publication bias [17]. Sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding each study to evaluate the stability of the results. For all statistical tests, a P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Literature search

A preliminary search yielded 80,821 records and an additional 4 records from other sources. After removing duplicates (n = 2,488), 78,337 titles and abstracts were screened. Of these, 56 articles were selected for full-text review according to the title or abstract. Based on the aforementioned inclusion and exclusion criteria, 32 studies were excluded, leaving 24 studies for inclusion in this meta-analysis (Fig 1).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Characteristics of studies

Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the included studies. The studies included in this review were published between 2015 and 2023, with 70.83% of the studies [3–6, 10, 11, 18–28] published in 2020 or later. Of the 24 studies, 9 studies [3–6, 11, 24, 25, 29, 30] were conducted in the United States, 4 studies [4, 18–20] were conducted in China, and 83.33% (20/24) of the studies included in the analysis were high-quality studies with NOS scores of 8 or higher (Table 2). The total sample size of the study was 243,453, the average sample size was 10,144, and the average follow-up time was 23.79 months (range, 3–72 months). Four studies used the skeletal muscle index (SMI) to measure sarcopenia with respect to the measurement standard of muscular dystrophy [18, 20, 26, 31], three studies used the psoas lumbar vertebral index (PLVI) [10, 11, 23], and three studies used the total psoas area/vertebral body area (TPA/VBA) [5, 22, 32]. Our meta-analysis included 2 prospective studies and 22 retrospective studies. The remaining studies measured and assessed sarcopenia using MRI, CT, or working group measurement standards.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Primary outcome

Adverse events.

Nine studies [4–6, 10, 18, 24, 26, 27, 33] reported the association between sarcopenia and adverse events. Overall, in comparison to the nonsarcopenic group, the sarcopenic group had a significantly higher risk of adverse events (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.17–2.27), with significant heterogeneity observed (I² = 79.4%, P<0.001) (Fig 2).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Subgroup analyses showed that the risk was significantly increased in the subgroups of studies with a female proportion of 50–60%, conducted in China, those focusing on lumbar surgery, average age≤65years and average BMI≥30 kg/m². Additionally, the analysis did not show a significant correlation between sarcopenia and the risk of postoperative complications in subgroups stratified by sample size, sarcopenia measurement methods, average follow-up time, and quality rating. By conducting subgroup analysis stratified by study region, sample size, average age, average BMI, sex, methods for measuring sarcopenia, mean follow-up time, and type of surgery, we found a significant reduction in heterogeneity, indicating that the heterogeneity can be attributed to these variables (Table 3).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

We use sensitivity analysis to analyze the stability of the results. During the analysis, we found that the combined OR did not change significantly due to any individual study (lowest OR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.05–1.80, highest OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.15–2.85). Visual inspection of the funnel plot showed basic symmetry (Fig 3), which was further validated by Egger’s test (P = 0.199) and Begg’s test (P = 0.917), indicating no publication bias.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Mortality.

Six studies [3–5, 11, 32, 33] reported an association between sarcopenia and postoperative mortality. We did not find significant association between sarcopenia and mortality (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.93–1.46), and significant heterogeneity was observed (I² = 51.3%, P = 0.068) (Fig 4).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Subgroup analyses showed a significantly increased risk in the subgroups with a sample size ≥200. Furthermore, subgroup analyses of studies conducted in the USA or elsewhere, sex, average age, average BMI, sarcopenia measurement methods, average follow-up time, and quality evaluation did not show a significant association between sarcopenia and postoperative mortality. Heterogeneity was significantly reduced in subgroup analyses of average age, sex and quality evaluation, suggesting that heterogeneity might have originated from these variables (Table 4).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Through sensitivity analysis, we found that the combined OR did not change significantly for any individual study (lowest OR = 1.09, 0.87–1.36, highest OR = 1.21, 0.95–1.53). Gross examination of the funnel plot revealed basic symmetry and potential evidence of publication bias (Fig 5), as demonstrated by Begg’s test (P = 0.260) and Egger’s test (P = 0.189). We performed Duvall & Tweedie’s trim and fill method as adjustments to risk estimates to assess the potential effects of publication bias. The results revealed one potentially missing study in the funnel plot region, with an OR value of 1.128 (95% CI 0.877–1.452) after publication bias adjustment, which was similar to the preliminary results.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Secondary outcomes

We did not find any association between sarcopenia and infection (OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.95–5.26), 30-day reoperation (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92–2.36), deep vein thrombosis (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.69–4.61), postoperative discharge home (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26–1.37) or blood transfusion (OR 3.28, 95% CI 0.74–14.64) (S1-S5 Figs in S1 File) (Table 5). There were insufficient studies available to evaluate publication bias for these outcomes (number of studies per outcome < 7); therefore, there was no further evaluation of publication bias for outcomes.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Discussion

Principal findings

This meta-analysis systematically reviewed data from 24 cohort studies and analyzed the relationship between sarcopenia and other postoperative outcomes of spinal surgery. Our meta-analysis found a significant correlation between sarcopenia and the risks of postoperative adverse events and mortality. However, we did not find a significant correlation between sarcopenia and the risks of infection, 30-day reoperation, deep vein thrombosis, return home after surgery, or blood transfusion.

Potential mechanisms

The increase in the incidence of adverse events after spinal surgery in patients with sarcopenia is attributable to a decrease in protein reserves, disruption of muscle protein homeostasis leading to a decrease in muscle mass, and an increase in systemic inflammation [34, 35]. Li Ziquan et al. found that the mechanism of poor prognosis in patients with sarcopenia was multifactorial, including muscle protein homeostasis imbalance, reduced reserves to respond to stress stressful events, and an enhanced systemic inflammatory response [20, 36, 37]. The investigation found that there are many muscle tissue factors that regulate bone tissue activity, and sarcopenia can affect various regulatory factors related to bone remodeling, such as insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), fibroblast growth factor (FGF-2), interleukins (IL-6, IL-15), myostatin, bone glycine, and irisin. Therefore, sarcopenia is related to a decrease in bone density [38–40]. A reduced bone mineral density is an important factor influencing the occurrences of falls and fractures and may also be a factor that contributes to an increase in the incidence of postoperative adverse events. In addition, sarcopenia is associated with hormonal imbalances and increased cytokine activity, which can lead to physical decline [38–41], and it may be related to an increase in the incidence of adverse events and mortality in patients after surgery. Zakaria, H.M. et al. found that sarcopenia may reflect the "cachexia" phenotype, which is a result of metabolic abnormalities in patients with advanced cancer and a potential cause of increased mortality after spinal surgery in sarcopenia patients [4, 42, 43].

A study found that the level of Runx2, a transcription factor essential to osteocyte maturation in patients with sarcopenia, was decreased, which was associated with a decrease in bone mineral density [44]. According to Mechanostat theory, the direct mechanical stimulation of bone caused by muscle contraction can promote osteogenesis, but this part of stimulation is lacking in sarcopenia patients [45]. In addition, sarcopenia and osteoporosis share many common pathways, such as sensitivity to decreased secretion of anabolic hormones, increased activity of inflammatory cytokines, and release of anabolic or catabolic molecules (muscle factors and bone factors) from skeletal muscle or osteocytes, resulting in reduced physical activity [46–48]. In the Ma et al study, it is found that muscle can affect bone mineral density through some physical mechanisms or the release of biological factors, and lean body weight may be a factor affecting bone mineral density [45]. To sum up, sarcopenia is likely to be a factor leading to the decrease of bone mineral density. In addition, there is growing evidence that bones and muscles can secrete various cytokines that regulate each other, including myostatin, irisin, interleukin 6, osteocalcin, RANKL, and osteoprotegerin [49]. In patients with sarcopenia, the reduced muscle activity may lead to relatively inadequate secretion of certain cytokines or hormones vital for metabolism and muscle function. These hormones play an important role in the human body, and the relative deficiency of these important hormones may be an important cause of adverse events after spinal surgery in patients with sarcopenia.

Comparison with other studies

When investigating the relationship between sarcopenia and mortality after spinal surgery, we found three similar systematic reviews [9, 50, 51], all of which indicated an increased risks of sarcopenia and mortality after spinal surgery. However, two of them did not find a significant correlation between sarcopenia and the incidence of adverse events after spinal surgery [9, 51]. In addition, the above studies have certain limitations due to reporting bias, insufficient subgroup analysis, inconsistent measurement standards for sarcopenia, etc. We used Duvall & Tweedie’s pruning and filling methods to adjust the risk estimates to evaluate the potential impact of publication bias and conducted a series of subgroup analyses to explore the heterogeneity of the study. This study is currently the largest and most comprehensive study investigating the relationship between sarcopenia and different outcomes after spinal surgery for nearly 240,000 participants.

Implications

In this study, the approximate risk of various complications after spinal surgery are estimated in patients with sarcopenia to provide guide future clinical practice. Preoperative measurement and effective management of skeletal muscle mass in patients have important clinical significance in preventing postoperative death and adverse events. At present, clinical doctors do not realize the importance of managing sarcopenia before spinal surgery and thus have not established standardized treatment for sarcopenia patients before surgery. This study provides new evidence-based medical evidence for clinical doctors to treat such patients. For patients with sarcopenia, providing appropriate and effective treatment before surgery will help to reduce the occurrence of postoperative complications.

Strengths

The current meta-analysis has the following strengths. First, we comprehensively searched the literature in three major databases, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, using MeSH/Emtree and free text terms and developed a comprehensive database search strategy that was not limited by date or language. As a result, we found original articles that met the inclusion criteria to avoid publication bias and improve the reproducibility of the results. Second, we adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and used the NOS scale to provide complete, informative, and transparent scoring criteria for the included studies. Third, we used several methods to fully test the stability of the results, including sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis. Finally, by using the trim-and-fill method to adjust the summary estimation based on publication bias, we found that the results were consistent with the initial results.

Limitations

Our research still presents some potential limitations. First, we found that there was some interstudy heterogeneity in the occurrences of postoperative mortality and adverse events, possibly due to a lack of standardization in the measurement of sarcopenia and differences in the baseline characteristics of the study cohort. However, we conducted further analysis to evaluate the source of this heterogeneity, and the adjusted results were consistent with the initial results. The subgroup analysis found that interstudy heterogeneity had little impact on the final results. Second, our conclusions were based on the data of a retrospective cohort study, so we cannot infer the causal relationship between sarcopenia and the incidences of adverse events and mortality after spinal surgery, which is also an inherent limitation of meta-analyses. Third, we also found that the impact of some risk factors was estimated near the border, with a confidence interval between 0.95 and 5.26 (such as infection). These findings need to be verified in a large prospective cohort study. Finally, at present, the diagnosis of sarcopenia is not unified, and there are no restrictions on the diagnosis of sarcopenia in our study. There are some differences between the different diagnostic methods of sarcopenia among the included studies, and these differences will affect our correct evaluation of the impact of sarcopenia on spinal surgery.

Conclusions

The current meta-analysis showed that patients with sarcopenia have increased risks of adverse events and mortality after spinal surgery. However, these results must be carefully interpreted because the number of studies included is small and the studies are significantly different. These findings may help to increase the clinicians’ awareness of the risks that are concerns patients with sarcopenia to improve their prognosis.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302291.s001

(DOCX)

S1 File.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302291.s002

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the esteemed Guojun Tang and Liangyuan Chen for their readings and contributions to improve the manuscript.

References

1. 1. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Sayer AA. Sarcopenia. Lancet. 2019;393(10191):2636–46. pmid:31171417

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

2. 2. Cho MR, Lee S, Song SK. A Review of Sarcopenia Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, Treatment and Future Direction. J Korean Med Sci. 2022;37(18):e146. pmid:35535373

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

3. 3. Zakaria HM, Llaniguez JT, Telemi E, Chuang M, Abouelleil M, Wilkinson B, et al. Sarcopenia Predicts Overall Survival in Patients with Lung, Breast, Prostate, or Myeloma Spine Metastases Undergoing Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT), Independent of Histology. Neurosurgery. 2020;86(5):705–16. pmid:31232439

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

4. 4. Zakaria HM, Wilkinson BM, Pennington Z, Saadeh YS, Lau D, Chandra A, et al. Sarcopenia as a Prognostic Factor for 90-Day and Overall Mortality in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery for Metastatic Tumors: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study. Neurosurgery. 2020;87(5):1025–36. pmid:32592483

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

5. 5. Hirase T, Haghshenas V, Bratescu R, Dong D, Kuo PH, Rashid A, et al. Sarcopenia predicts perioperative adverse events following complex revision surgery for the thoracolumbar spine. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2021;21(6):1001–9. pmid:33561547

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

6. 6. Albright JA, Chang K, Alsoof D, McDonald CL, Diebo BG, Daniels AH. Sarcopenia and Postoperative Complications, Cost of Care, and All-Cause Hospital Readmission Following Lumbar Spine Arthrodesis: A Propensity Matched Cohort Study. World Neurosurg. 2023;169:e131–e40. pmid:36307038

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

7. 7. Grund S, Bauer JM. Malnutrition and Sarcopenia in COVID-19 Survivors. Clinics in geriatric medicine. 2022;38(3):559–64. pmid:35868673

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

8. 8. Aizawa T, Kokubun S, Ozawa H, Kusakabe T, Tanaka Y, Hoshikawa T, et al. Increasing Incidence of Degenerative Spinal Diseases in Japan during 25 Years: The Registration System of Spinal Surgery in Tohoku University Spine Society. The Tohoku journal of experimental medicine. 2016;238(2):153–63. pmid:26876801

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

9. 9. Flexman AM, Street J, Charest-Morin R. The impact of frailty and sarcopenia on patient outcomes after complex spine surgery. Current opinion in anaesthesiology. 2019;32(5):609–15. pmid:31192792

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

10. 10. Barile F, Ruffilli A, Fiore M, Manzetti M, Geraci G, Viroli G, et al. Is Sarcopenia a Risk Factor for Postoperative Surgical Site Infection After Posterior Lumbar Spinal Fusion? Int J Spine Surg. 2022;16(4):735–9. pmid:35835577

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

11. 11. Brinkmann EJ, Wenger DE, Johnson JD, Karim SM, Blezek DJ, Rose PS, et al. Impact of preoperative sarcopenia in patients undergoing sacral tumor resection. J Surg Oncol. 2022;125(4):790–5. pmid:34932215

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

12. 12. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2021;134:178–89. pmid:33789819

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

13. 13. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Bmj. 2017;358:j4008. pmid:28935701

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

14. 14. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European journal of epidemiology. 2010;25(9):603–5. pmid:20652370

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

15. 15. Wells GA SB, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

16. 16. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj. 2003;327(7414):557–60. pmid:12958120

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

17. 17. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63. pmid:10877304

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

18. 18. Wang H, Wang C, Sun C, Liu XH, Gong G, Yin J. [Effect of Sarcopenia on the Efficacy of Percutaneous Kyphoplasty in the Treatment of Osteoporotic Spinal Compression Fractures in Elderly Patients]. Zhongguo yi xue ke xue yuan xue bao Acta Academiae Medicinae Sinicae. 2021;43(2):153–8. pmid:33966691

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

19. 19. Li H, Li J, Ma Y, Li F, Xu Z, Chen Q. The effect of sarcopenia in the clinical outcomes following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2021;34(3):469–76. pmid:33492276

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

20. 20. Li Z, Zhang C, Wang H, Yu K, Zhang J, Wang Y. [Impact of sarcopenia on effectiveness of lumbar decompression surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022;36(6):745–50. pmid:35712933

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

21. 21. Kim DU, Park HK, Lee GH, Chang JC, Park HR, Park SQ, et al. Central Sarcopenia, Frailty and Comorbidity as Predictor of Surgical Outcome in Elderly Patients with Degenerative Spine Disease. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2021;64(6):995–1003. pmid:34614555

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

22. 22. Bourassa-Moreau É, Versteeg A, Moskven E, Charest-Morin R, Flexman A, Ailon T, et al. Sarcopenia, but not frailty, predicts early mortality and adverse events after emergent surgery for metastatic disease of the spine. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2020;20(1):22–31. pmid:31479782

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

23. 23. Ruffilli A, Manzetti M, Cerasoli T, Barile F, Viroli G, Traversari M, et al. Osteopenia and Sarcopenia as Potential Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection after Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Retrospective Study. Microorganisms. 2022;10(10). pmid:36296182

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

24. 24. Akbik OS, Al-Adli N, Pernik MN, Hicks WH, Hall K, Aoun SG, et al. A Comparative Analysis of Frailty, Disability, and Sarcopenia With Patient Characteristics and Outcomes in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery. Global Spine J. 2023;13(8):2345–56. pmid:35384776

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

25. 25. Massaad E, Saylor PJ, Hadzipasic M, Kiapour A, Oh K, Schwab JH, et al. The effectiveness of systemic therapies after surgery for metastatic renal cell carcinoma to the spine: a propensity analysis controlling for sarcopenia, frailty, and nutrition. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;35(3):356–65. pmid:34171829

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

26. 26. Bo J, Zhao X, Hua Z, Li J, Qi X, Shen Y. Impact of sarcopenia and sagittal parameters on the residual back pain after percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17(1):111. pmid:35184761

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

27. 27. Ohyama S, Hoshino M, Takahashi S, Hori Y, Yasuda H, Terai H, et al. Presence of sarcopenia does not affect the clinical results of balloon kyphoplasty for acute osteoporotic vertebral fracture. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):122. pmid:33420234

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

28. 28. Sakai Y, Wakao N, Matsui H, Tomita K, Watanabe T, Iida H. Surgical results in older patients with lumbar spinal stenosis according to gait speed in relation to the diagnosis for sarcopenia. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery. 2020;28(2).

* View Article

* Google Scholar

29. 29. Bokshan SL, Han AL, DePasse JM, Eltorai AE, Marcaccio SE, Palumbo MA, et al. Effect of Sarcopenia on Postoperative Morbidity and Mortality After Thoracolumbar Spine Surgery. Orthopedics. 2016;39(6):e1159–e64. pmid:27536954

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

30. 30. McKenzie JC, Wagner SC, Sebastian A, Casper DS, Mangan J, Stull J, et al. Sarcopenia does not affect clinical outcomes following lumbar fusion. Journal of clinical neuroscience: official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia. 2019;64:150–4. pmid:30898487

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

31. 31. Koshimizu H, Sakai Y, Harada A, Ito S, Ito K, Hida T. The Impact of Sarcopenia on Cervical Spine Sagittal Alignment After Cervical Laminoplasty. Clin Spine Surg. 2018;31(7):E342–e6. pmid:29863596

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

32. 32. Gakhar H, Dhillon A, Blackwell J, Hussain K, Bommireddy R, Klezl Z, et al. Study investigating the role of skeletal muscle mass estimation in metastatic spinal cord compression. European spine journal: official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 2015;24(10):2150–5. pmid:26055275

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

33. 33. Charest-Morin R, Street J, Zhang H, Roughead T, Ailon T, Boyd M, et al. Frailty and sarcopenia do not predict adverse events in an elderly population undergoing non-complex primary elective surgery for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2018;18(2):245–54. pmid:28709946

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

34. 34. Tsekoura M, Billis E, Tsepis E, Dimitriadis Z, Matzaroglou C, Tyllianakis M, et al. The Effects of Group and Home-Based Exercise Programs in Elderly with Sarcopenia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Med. 2018;7(12). pmid:30486262

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

35. 35. Lee SY, Lee HJ, Lim JY. Effects of leucine-rich protein supplements in older adults with sarcopenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2022;102:104758. pmid:35777246

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

36. 36. Ganapathy A, Nieves JW. Nutrition and Sarcopenia-What Do We Know? Nutrients. 2020;12(6). pmid:32545408

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

37. 37. Lang T, Streeper T, Cawthon P, Baldwin K, Taaffe DR, Harris TB. Sarcopenia: etiology, clinical consequences, intervention, and assessment. Osteoporosis international: a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 2010;21(4):543–59. pmid:19779761

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

38. 38. Tagliaferri C, Wittrant Y, Davicco MJ, Walrand S, Coxam V. Muscle and bone, two interconnected tissues. Ageing research reviews. 2015;21:55–70. pmid:25804855

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

39. 39. Girgis CM, Mokbel N, Digirolamo DJ. Therapies for musculoskeletal disease: can we treat two birds with one stone? Current osteoporosis reports. 2014;12(2):142–53. pmid:24633910

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

40. 40. Laurent MR, Dubois V, Claessens F, Verschueren SM, Vanderschueren D, Gielen E, et al. Muscle-bone interactions: From experimental models to the clinic? A critical update. Molecular and cellular endocrinology. 2016;432:14–36. pmid:26506009

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

41. 41. Reginster JY, Beaudart C, Buckinx F, Bruyère O. Osteoporosis and sarcopenia: two diseases or one? Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care. 2016;19(1):31–6. pmid:26418824

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

42. 42. Baracos VE, Martin L, Korc M, Guttridge DC, Fearon KCH. Cancer-associated cachexia. Nature reviews Disease primers. 2018;4:17105. pmid:29345251

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

43. 43. Loumaye A, Thissen JP. Biomarkers of cancer cachexia. Clinical biochemistry. 2017;50(18):1281–8. pmid:28739222

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

44. 44. Wannenes F, Papa V, Greco EA, Fornari R, Marocco C, Baldari C, et al. Abdominal Fat and Sarcopenia in Women Significantly Alter Osteoblasts Homeostasis In Vitro by a WNT/ β -Catenin Dependent Mechanism. Int J Endocrinol. 2014;2014:278316.

* View Article

* Google Scholar

45. 45. Ma X-Y, Liu H-M, Lv W-Q, Qiu C, Xiao H-M, Deng H-W. A bi-directional Mendelian randomization study of the sarcopenia-related traits and osteoporosis. Aging (Albany NY). 2022;14(14):5681–98. pmid:35780076

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

46. 46. Wong RMY, Wong H, Zhang N, Chow SKH, Chau WW, Wang J, et al. The relationship between sarcopenia and fragility fracture-a systematic review. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(3):541–53. pmid:30610245

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

47. 47. He H, Liu Y, Tian Q, Papasian CJ, Hu T, Deng HW. Relationship of sarcopenia and body composition with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(2):473–82. pmid:26243357

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

48. 48. Urano T, Inoue S. Recent genetic discoveries in osteoporosis, sarcopenia and obesity. Endocr J. 2015;62(6):475–84. pmid:25866211

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

49. 49. Zhang L, Sun Y. Muscle-Bone Crosstalk in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:724911. pmid:34650518

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

50. 50. Brzeszczynski F, Brzeszczynska J, Duckworth AD, Murray IR, Simpson A, Hamilton DF. The effect of sarcopenia on outcomes following orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review. The bone & joint journal. 2022;104-b(3):321–30. pmid:35227092

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

51. 51. Moskven E, Bourassa-Moreau É, Charest-Morin R, Flexman A, Street J. The impact of frailty and sarcopenia on postoperative outcomes in adult spine surgery. A systematic review of the literature. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2018;18(12):2354–69. pmid:30053520

* View Article

* PubMed/NCBI

* Google Scholar

Citation: Luo M, Mei Z, Tang S, Huang J, Yuan K, Jiang L, et al. (2024) The impact of sarcopenia on the incidence of postoperative outcomes following spine surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0302291. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302291

About the Authors:

Mingjiang Luo

Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

¶‡ ML, ZM, ST and JH co-first authors on this work. ZM, ZY, GX and ZX co-corresponding authors on this work.

Affiliation: The Second Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0693-8695

Zubing Mei

Roles: Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

E-mail: [email protected]

¶‡ ML, ZM, ST and JH co-first authors on this work. ZM, ZY, GX and ZX co-corresponding authors on this work.

Affiliations: The Second Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China, Department of Anorectal Surgery, Shuguang Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China, Anorectal Disease Institute of Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai, China

ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6823-7205

Siliang Tang

Roles: Formal analysis, Resources, Software

¶‡ ML, ZM, ST and JH co-first authors on this work. ZM, ZY, GX and ZX co-corresponding authors on this work.

Affiliation: The Second Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

Jinshan Huang

Roles: Data curation, Writing – original draft

¶‡ ML, ZM, ST and JH co-first authors on this work. ZM, ZY, GX and ZX co-corresponding authors on this work.

Affiliation: The Second Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

Kun Yuan

Roles: Data curation, Formal analysis

Affiliation: Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

Lingling Jiang

Roles: Data curation, Formal analysis

Affiliation: Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

Zhifeng Tang

Roles: Resources, Software

Affiliation: Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

Keni Li

Roles: Project administration, Software

Affiliation: Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

Mingxuan Su

Roles: Investigation, Software

Affiliation: Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

Can Su

Roles: Software

Affiliation: Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

Yuxin Shi

Roles: Data curation

Affiliation: Department of Pediatric Dentistry, First Affiliated Hospital (Affiliated Stomatological Hospital) of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China

Zihan Zhang

Roles: Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology

Affiliation: The Second Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

Jiang Chen

Roles: Data curation

Affiliation: The Second Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

Yuan Zheng

Roles: Formal analysis

Affiliation: The Second Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

Peng Bin

Roles: Data curation

Affiliation: The Second Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

Zhengbing Yuan

Roles: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

¶‡ ML, ZM, ST and JH co-first authors on this work. ZM, ZY, GX and ZX co-corresponding authors on this work.

Affiliation: Department of Orthopaedics, Dongguan Qiaotou Hospital, Dongguan, Guangdong, China

Guosong Xu

Roles: Resources, Writing – review & editing

¶‡ ML, ZM, ST and JH co-first authors on this work. ZM, ZY, GX and ZX co-corresponding authors on this work.

Affiliation: Department of Orthopaedics, The First Hospital of Putian City, The School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Putian, Fujian, China

Zhihong Xiao

Roles: Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

¶‡ ML, ZM, ST and JH co-first authors on this work. ZM, ZY, GX and ZX co-corresponding authors on this work.

Affiliation: The Second Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China

References

1. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Sayer AA. Sarcopenia. Lancet. 2019;393(10191):2636–46. pmid:31171417

2. Cho MR, Lee S, Song SK. A Review of Sarcopenia Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, Treatment and Future Direction. J Korean Med Sci. 2022;37(18):e146. pmid:35535373

3. Zakaria HM, Llaniguez JT, Telemi E, Chuang M, Abouelleil M, Wilkinson B, et al. Sarcopenia Predicts Overall Survival in Patients with Lung, Breast, Prostate, or Myeloma Spine Metastases Undergoing Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT), Independent of Histology. Neurosurgery. 2020;86(5):705–16. pmid:31232439

4. Zakaria HM, Wilkinson BM, Pennington Z, Saadeh YS, Lau D, Chandra A, et al. Sarcopenia as a Prognostic Factor for 90-Day and Overall Mortality in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery for Metastatic Tumors: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study. Neurosurgery. 2020;87(5):1025–36. pmid:32592483

5. Hirase T, Haghshenas V, Bratescu R, Dong D, Kuo PH, Rashid A, et al. Sarcopenia predicts perioperative adverse events following complex revision surgery for the thoracolumbar spine. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2021;21(6):1001–9. pmid:33561547

6. Albright JA, Chang K, Alsoof D, McDonald CL, Diebo BG, Daniels AH. Sarcopenia and Postoperative Complications, Cost of Care, and All-Cause Hospital Readmission Following Lumbar Spine Arthrodesis: A Propensity Matched Cohort Study. World Neurosurg. 2023;169:e131–e40. pmid:36307038

7. Grund S, Bauer JM. Malnutrition and Sarcopenia in COVID-19 Survivors. Clinics in geriatric medicine. 2022;38(3):559–64. pmid:35868673

8. Aizawa T, Kokubun S, Ozawa H, Kusakabe T, Tanaka Y, Hoshikawa T, et al. Increasing Incidence of Degenerative Spinal Diseases in Japan during 25 Years: The Registration System of Spinal Surgery in Tohoku University Spine Society. The Tohoku journal of experimental medicine. 2016;238(2):153–63. pmid:26876801

9. Flexman AM, Street J, Charest-Morin R. The impact of frailty and sarcopenia on patient outcomes after complex spine surgery. Current opinion in anaesthesiology. 2019;32(5):609–15. pmid:31192792

10. Barile F, Ruffilli A, Fiore M, Manzetti M, Geraci G, Viroli G, et al. Is Sarcopenia a Risk Factor for Postoperative Surgical Site Infection After Posterior Lumbar Spinal Fusion? Int J Spine Surg. 2022;16(4):735–9. pmid:35835577

11. Brinkmann EJ, Wenger DE, Johnson JD, Karim SM, Blezek DJ, Rose PS, et al. Impact of preoperative sarcopenia in patients undergoing sacral tumor resection. J Surg Oncol. 2022;125(4):790–5. pmid:34932215

12. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2021;134:178–89. pmid:33789819

13. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. Bmj. 2017;358:j4008. pmid:28935701

14. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European journal of epidemiology. 2010;25(9):603–5. pmid:20652370

15. Wells GA SB, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.

16. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj. 2003;327(7414):557–60. pmid:12958120

17. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63. pmid:10877304

18. Wang H, Wang C, Sun C, Liu XH, Gong G, Yin J. [Effect of Sarcopenia on the Efficacy of Percutaneous Kyphoplasty in the Treatment of Osteoporotic Spinal Compression Fractures in Elderly Patients]. Zhongguo yi xue ke xue yuan xue bao Acta Academiae Medicinae Sinicae. 2021;43(2):153–8. pmid:33966691

19. Li H, Li J, Ma Y, Li F, Xu Z, Chen Q. The effect of sarcopenia in the clinical outcomes following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2021;34(3):469–76. pmid:33492276

20. Li Z, Zhang C, Wang H, Yu K, Zhang J, Wang Y. [Impact of sarcopenia on effectiveness of lumbar decompression surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022;36(6):745–50. pmid:35712933

21. Kim DU, Park HK, Lee GH, Chang JC, Park HR, Park SQ, et al. Central Sarcopenia, Frailty and Comorbidity as Predictor of Surgical Outcome in Elderly Patients with Degenerative Spine Disease. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2021;64(6):995–1003. pmid:34614555

22. Bourassa-Moreau É, Versteeg A, Moskven E, Charest-Morin R, Flexman A, Ailon T, et al. Sarcopenia, but not frailty, predicts early mortality and adverse events after emergent surgery for metastatic disease of the spine. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2020;20(1):22–31. pmid:31479782

23. Ruffilli A, Manzetti M, Cerasoli T, Barile F, Viroli G, Traversari M, et al. Osteopenia and Sarcopenia as Potential Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection after Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Retrospective Study. Microorganisms. 2022;10(10). pmid:36296182

24. Akbik OS, Al-Adli N, Pernik MN, Hicks WH, Hall K, Aoun SG, et al. A Comparative Analysis of Frailty, Disability, and Sarcopenia With Patient Characteristics and Outcomes in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery. Global Spine J. 2023;13(8):2345–56. pmid:35384776

25. Massaad E, Saylor PJ, Hadzipasic M, Kiapour A, Oh K, Schwab JH, et al. The effectiveness of systemic therapies after surgery for metastatic renal cell carcinoma to the spine: a propensity analysis controlling for sarcopenia, frailty, and nutrition. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;35(3):356–65. pmid:34171829

26. Bo J, Zhao X, Hua Z, Li J, Qi X, Shen Y. Impact of sarcopenia and sagittal parameters on the residual back pain after percutaneous vertebroplasty in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17(1):111. pmid:35184761

27. Ohyama S, Hoshino M, Takahashi S, Hori Y, Yasuda H, Terai H, et al. Presence of sarcopenia does not affect the clinical results of balloon kyphoplasty for acute osteoporotic vertebral fracture. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):122. pmid:33420234

28. Sakai Y, Wakao N, Matsui H, Tomita K, Watanabe T, Iida H. Surgical results in older patients with lumbar spinal stenosis according to gait speed in relation to the diagnosis for sarcopenia. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery. 2020;28(2).

29. Bokshan SL, Han AL, DePasse JM, Eltorai AE, Marcaccio SE, Palumbo MA, et al. Effect of Sarcopenia on Postoperative Morbidity and Mortality After Thoracolumbar Spine Surgery. Orthopedics. 2016;39(6):e1159–e64. pmid:27536954

30. McKenzie JC, Wagner SC, Sebastian A, Casper DS, Mangan J, Stull J, et al. Sarcopenia does not affect clinical outcomes following lumbar fusion. Journal of clinical neuroscience: official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia. 2019;64:150–4. pmid:30898487

31. Koshimizu H, Sakai Y, Harada A, Ito S, Ito K, Hida T. The Impact of Sarcopenia on Cervical Spine Sagittal Alignment After Cervical Laminoplasty. Clin Spine Surg. 2018;31(7):E342–e6. pmid:29863596

32. Gakhar H, Dhillon A, Blackwell J, Hussain K, Bommireddy R, Klezl Z, et al. Study investigating the role of skeletal muscle mass estimation in metastatic spinal cord compression. European spine journal: official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 2015;24(10):2150–5. pmid:26055275

33. Charest-Morin R, Street J, Zhang H, Roughead T, Ailon T, Boyd M, et al. Frailty and sarcopenia do not predict adverse events in an elderly population undergoing non-complex primary elective surgery for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2018;18(2):245–54. pmid:28709946

34. Tsekoura M, Billis E, Tsepis E, Dimitriadis Z, Matzaroglou C, Tyllianakis M, et al. The Effects of Group and Home-Based Exercise Programs in Elderly with Sarcopenia: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Med. 2018;7(12). pmid:30486262

35. Lee SY, Lee HJ, Lim JY. Effects of leucine-rich protein supplements in older adults with sarcopenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2022;102:104758. pmid:35777246

36. Ganapathy A, Nieves JW. Nutrition and Sarcopenia-What Do We Know? Nutrients. 2020;12(6). pmid:32545408

37. Lang T, Streeper T, Cawthon P, Baldwin K, Taaffe DR, Harris TB. Sarcopenia: etiology, clinical consequences, intervention, and assessment. Osteoporosis international: a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 2010;21(4):543–59. pmid:19779761

38. Tagliaferri C, Wittrant Y, Davicco MJ, Walrand S, Coxam V. Muscle and bone, two interconnected tissues. Ageing research reviews. 2015;21:55–70. pmid:25804855

39. Girgis CM, Mokbel N, Digirolamo DJ. Therapies for musculoskeletal disease: can we treat two birds with one stone? Current osteoporosis reports. 2014;12(2):142–53. pmid:24633910

40. Laurent MR, Dubois V, Claessens F, Verschueren SM, Vanderschueren D, Gielen E, et al. Muscle-bone interactions: From experimental models to the clinic? A critical update. Molecular and cellular endocrinology. 2016;432:14–36. pmid:26506009

41. Reginster JY, Beaudart C, Buckinx F, Bruyère O. Osteoporosis and sarcopenia: two diseases or one? Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care. 2016;19(1):31–6. pmid:26418824

42. Baracos VE, Martin L, Korc M, Guttridge DC, Fearon KCH. Cancer-associated cachexia. Nature reviews Disease primers. 2018;4:17105. pmid:29345251

43. Loumaye A, Thissen JP. Biomarkers of cancer cachexia. Clinical biochemistry. 2017;50(18):1281–8. pmid:28739222

44. Wannenes F, Papa V, Greco EA, Fornari R, Marocco C, Baldari C, et al. Abdominal Fat and Sarcopenia in Women Significantly Alter Osteoblasts Homeostasis In Vitro by a WNT/ β -Catenin Dependent Mechanism. Int J Endocrinol. 2014;2014:278316.

45. Ma X-Y, Liu H-M, Lv W-Q, Qiu C, Xiao H-M, Deng H-W. A bi-directional Mendelian randomization study of the sarcopenia-related traits and osteoporosis. Aging (Albany NY). 2022;14(14):5681–98. pmid:35780076

46. Wong RMY, Wong H, Zhang N, Chow SKH, Chau WW, Wang J, et al. The relationship between sarcopenia and fragility fracture-a systematic review. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(3):541–53. pmid:30610245

47. He H, Liu Y, Tian Q, Papasian CJ, Hu T, Deng HW. Relationship of sarcopenia and body composition with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2016;27(2):473–82. pmid:26243357

48. Urano T, Inoue S. Recent genetic discoveries in osteoporosis, sarcopenia and obesity. Endocr J. 2015;62(6):475–84. pmid:25866211

49. Zhang L, Sun Y. Muscle-Bone Crosstalk in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:724911. pmid:34650518

50. Brzeszczynski F, Brzeszczynska J, Duckworth AD, Murray IR, Simpson A, Hamilton DF. The effect of sarcopenia on outcomes following orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review. The bone & joint journal. 2022;104-b(3):321–30. pmid:35227092

51. Moskven E, Bourassa-Moreau É, Charest-Morin R, Flexman A, Street J. The impact of frailty and sarcopenia on postoperative outcomes in adult spine surgery. A systematic review of the literature. The spine journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2018;18(12):2354–69. pmid:30053520