Effect of Vertebral Shell on Injection Pressure and Intravertebral Pressure in Vertebroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. An experimental biomechanical study conducted on osteoporotic cadaveric vertebrae. Objectives. 1) To measure the intravertebral shell pressure and injection pressure; and 2) to determine the effect of the vertebral shell on the intravertebral shell pressure and on the injection pressure. Summary of Background Data. Forces that govern cement flow are an essential component of the cement injection process in vertebroplasty. The vertebral shell may play a significant role in confining the flow of cement in the vertebral body and thereby affecting the intravertebral pressure and injection pressure. Methods. A small fenestration was created in the left lateral vertebral shell of 14 vertebrae. A valve to open and close the fenestration and a sensor to measure the intravertebral pressure were attached to the opening. A closed fenestration simulated an intact shell, whereas an open fenestration represented a vented shell. Injection pressure and intravertebral pressure at the shell were recorded during a controlled injection. Results. A closed fenestration resulted in a significant increase in the intravertebral pressure at the shell. During the injection, the shell pressure increased on average to approximately 3.54 ± 2.91 kPa. Conversely, an open fenestration resulted in an instant relaxation of the shell pressure to the ambient pressure of 0 kPa. Additionally, the injection pressure was approximately 97 times higher than the shell pressure. Conclusion. The presence of vertebral shell seems to be important for intravertebral pressure. However, the intravertebral shell pressure adds very little to the injection pressure. The effect of the vertebral shell on the intravertebral pressure injection pressure was examined. It was found that the shell is important for the intravertebral pressure but not for the injection pressure. A clinical implication for vertebroplasty is that shell pressure might play a significant role in controlling the filling patterns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".