MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High-Viscosity Cement Significantly Enhances Uniformity of Cement Filling in Vertebroplasty: An Experimental Model and Study on Cement Leakage

2006· article· en· W1967320407 on OpenAlexaff
Gamal Baroud, Meghan Crookshank, Marc Bohner

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementLeakage (economics)Bone cementComposite materialViscosityMedicineMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study using a laboratory leakage model. OBJECTIVE: To examine the working hypothesis that high-viscosity cements will spread uniformly, thus significantly reducing the risk of leakage. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In vertebroplasty, forces that govern the flow of bone cement in the trabecular bone skeleton are an essential determinant of the uniformity of cement filling. Extraosseous cement leakage has been reported to be a major complication of this procedure. Leakage occurs due to the presence of a path of least resistance caused by irregularities in the trabecular bone or shell structure. Ideally, cement uniformly infiltrates the trabecular bone skeleton and does not favor specific paths. Cement viscosity is believed to affect the infiltration forces and flow during the procedure. Clinically, altering the time between cement mixing and delivery modifies the viscosity of bone cement. METHODS: An experimental model of the leakage phenomenon of vertebroplasty was developed. A path, simulating a blood vessel, was created in the model to perturb the forces underlying cement flow and to favor leakage. Cement of varying viscosities was injected in the model, and, thereafter, the filling pattern, cement mass that has leaked, time at which leakage occurred, and injection pressure were measured. RESULTS: A strong relationship was found between the uniformity of the filling pattern and the elapsed time from cement mixing and viscosity, respectively. Specifically, 3 distinct cement leakage patterns were observed: immediate leakage was observed when cement was injected 5-7 minutes following mixing. The cement was of a low viscosity and more than 50% of the total cement injected leaked. Moderate leakage was observed when injection occurred 7-10 minutes following mixing. Less than 10% of the cement leaked, and the viscosity was at a transient state between the low viscosity of immediate leakage and a higher viscosity, doughy cement. Cement leakage ceased completely when cement was delivered after 10 minutes. The viscosity of the cement in this case was high, and the cement was of a dough-like consistency. CONCLUSIONS: High-viscosity cement seems to stabilize cement flow. However, the forces required for the delivery of high-viscosity cement may approach or exceed the human physical limit of injection forces. Although the working time of the cement is about 17 minutes, it may not be manually injectable with a standard syringe and cannula after 10 minutes, at which time cement leakage ceased completely.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations202
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207