The Predictive Paradigm in Perioperative Hemodynamic Management: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Major Spine Surgery

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

Background: Major spine surgery carries an inherent risk of hemodynamic instability due to prone positioning, significant blood loss, and the strict necessity to maintain adequate spinal cord perfusion. Hemodynamic management mainly relies on a reactive approach, treating hypotension only after it occurs, which increases the risk of postoperative complications such as acute kidney injury and ischemic events. This narrative review evaluates the clinical impact, current evidence, and future perspectives of integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms into perioperative hemodynamic care. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted through PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, spanning from inception to January 2026. The search strategy employed combinations of Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords related to “Artificial Intelligence,” “Machine Learning,” “Hypotension Prediction Index,” “hemodynamic monitoring,” and “major spine surgery.” Studies were selected based on their relevance to predictive hemodynamic algorithms, goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT), and automated closed-loop systems within the perioperative setting of complex spinal interventions. Results: Five studies show that AI/ML tools can improve hemodynamic management in spine surgery: an hypotension prediction index (HPI)-guided algorithm reduced intraoperative hypotension during prone spinal fusion; a machine learning model accurately predicted massive blood loss in metastatic spinal disease; an AutoML framework linked intraoperative hypertension to worse neurological recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI); a case report showed HPI-guided goal-directed therapy enabled safe, transfusion-free major spine surgery; and topological network analysis identified a narrow optimal mean arterial pressure (MAP) range for neurological recovery after SCI. Collectively, these preliminary findings suggest a potential role for AI/ML in reducing hemodynamic instability and enabling more individualized perioperative management in spine surgery. Rather than converging on a single verdict, these five studies fall into three distinct evidentiary categories when appraised using a structured model-validation (V1–V4) and clinical-translation (T0–T4) framework applied within each category: a real-time monitoring technology (HPI) with a substantial extra-spinal evidence base but a limited spine-specific replication record; a single, externally validated but clinically unproven preoperative prediction model; and two retrospective, hypothesis-generating discovery frameworks that remain exploratory irrespective of surgical domain. Conclusions: The evidence identified does not support a single, unified statement about “AI/ML in spine surgery.” Instead, it points to three distinct situations that warrant separate research priorities: consolidating spine-specific replication of an otherwise mature monitoring technology (HPI); externally confirming the clinical utility, rather than only the discriminative accuracy, of a single preoperative prediction model; and prospectively testing the retrospectively derived targets generated by discovery-oriented analytic frameworks. Considered together, these findings should inform hypothesis-driven research design rather than a single implementation-readiness judgment.