MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971738943 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3182a0da47

Comparative Study of Lumbopelvic Sagittal Alignment Between Patients With and Without Sacroiliac Joint Pain After Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2013· article· en· W1971738943 on OpenAlexaff
Myung-Hoon Shin, Kyeong-Sik Ryu, Jung-Woo Hur, Jin‐Sung Kim, Chun-Kun Park

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSacroiliac jointPelvic tiltSagittal planeLumbarLow back painOswestry Disability IndexPelvic painSacrumSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. A retrospective case-control study. Objective. To elucidate the role of changes of lumbopelvic sagittal alignment in the pathogenesis of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) by comparing these values with the control, patients without SIJ pain. Summary of Background Data. There has been no study specifically addressing the relation between lumbopelvic sagittal alignment and SIJ pain after PLIF. Methods. Among 346 patients who underwent PLIF between June 2009 and April 2012, patients with postoperative SIJ pain who responded to SIJ block were enrolled. For a control group, patients who were matched for sex, age group, the number of fused level, and fusion to sacrum were randomly selected. The patients were assessed using clinical and radiological parameters including age, sex, diagnosis, bone mineral density, body mass index, lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt, and sacral slope. Target LL (PI + 9°), achieved rate of LL (postoperative LL/target LL × 100), and LL-PI mismatch (Δ) were also calculated and compared between 2 groups. Results. Twenty-three patients (9 males and 14 females) with SIJ pain and 46 patients (18 males and 28 females) without SIJ pain were assessed. Postoperatively, the SIJ pain group showed significantly greater pelvic tilt (19.88 ± 10.42°, P = 0.03), smaller achieved rate of LL (64.3%, P = 0.02), and substantial residual LL-PI mismatch (−14.45 ± 12.16°, P = 0.03) than the non-SIJ pain group (14.25 ± 7.68°, 73.2%, and −8.26 ± 9.12°, respectively). The degree of correlation between LL and PI in both the SIJ pain group and the non-SIJ pain group was positive preoperatively (r = 0.569; P = 0.003, r = 0.591; P = 0.000, respectively). Although correlation of the SIJ pain group remained positive postoperatively (r = 0.601, P = 0.002), it became strongly positive in the non-SIJ pain group (r = 0.856, P = 0.000). Conclusion. This study indicates that lumbopelvic sagittal imbalance inferred from greater pelvic tilt and inadequately restored LL may play a central role in the development of SIJ pain after PLIF. Thus, it is important to restore lumbopelvic sagittal balance and to evaluate PI to determine the ideal LL that is needed to prevent postoperative SIJ pain. Level of Evidence: 3 This retrospective case-control study indicates that lumbopelvic sagittal imbalance represented by greater pelvic tilt and inadequately restored lumbar lordosis may play a central role in the development of sacroiliac joint pain after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Thus, it is important to restore lumbopelvic sagittal balance and to evaluate the pelvic incidence when determining the ideal lumbar lordosis to prevent postoperative sacroiliac joint pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations47
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207