Lumbosacral Nerve Root Anomaly Associated With Spondylolisthesis in an Adolescent: A Case Report and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Case report. Objective. We describe the case of a lumbosacral nerve root anomaly in a 16-year-old male with spondylolisthesis and neurologic findings exceeding that that was expected of the underlying deformity. A complete review of clinical, radiologic, and operative records was performed. Summary of Background Data. Spondylolisthesis is a relatively common cause of lower back pain in adolescents. Neurologic findings may occur, most commonly associated with higher grade spondylolisthesis and spondyloptosis. Lumbosacral nerve root anomalies have been reported and are typically associated with neurologic symptoms in excess of the underlying deformity. Methods. The 16-year-old male presented with lower back pain, difficulty walking, and sensory and motor symptoms in the L5 and S1 nerve root distributions. Radiographs revealed a Meyerding grade III spondylolisthesis, with a slip angle of 14° and a lumbosacral angle of 76°. Neither computerized tomography nor magnetic resonance imaging revealed the presence of lumbosacral nerve root anomalies. Results. Intraoperatively, an L5–S1 anastomotic nerve root on the left side was identified. Conclusions. This case emphasizes the need to consider the presence of lumbosacral nerve root anomalies in cases in which neurologic findings exceed what would be anticipated. Preoperative identification of these anomalies allows for their existence to be considered in the surgical plan. A lumbosacral nerve root anomaly in a 16-year-old male with spondylolisthesis and neurologic findings exceeding that that was expected is presented. Intraoperatively, an L5-S1 anastomotic nerve root was identified. Preoperative identification of these anomalies allows for their existence to be considered in the surgical plan.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".