MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978459105 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181c40bf2

Thoracic Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy for Fixed Sagittal Spinal Deformity

2009· article· en· W1978459105 on OpenAlexaff
Brian A. O’Shaughnessy, Timothy R. Kuklo, Patrick C. Hsieh, Benson P. Yang, Tyler R. Koski, Stephen L. Ondra

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSagittal planeRadiographyOsteotomyLumbarThoracic vertebraeSurgeryKyphosisScoliosisThoracic spineDeformitySubtractionRadiologyLumbar vertebrae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN.: A retrospective clinical study. OBJECTIVE.: To find the corrective capacity of a thoracic pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO), determine if segmental correction is dependent on level, and to compute the impact of thoracic PSO on regional and global spinal balance. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: PSO is a technique popularized in the lumbar spine primarily for the correction of fixed sagittal imbalance. Despite several studies describing the clinical and radiographic outcome of lumbar PSO, there is no study in literature reporting its application in the thoracic spine. METHODS.: We retrospectively analyzed patients with fixed thoracic kyphosis who underwent thoracic PSOs for sagittal realignment. Segmental pedicle screw instrumentation and intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring was used in all patients. Data acquisition was performed by reviewing medical charts and radiographs to determine sagittal correction (segmental/regional/global) and complications. Clinical outcome using the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) instrument was determined by interview. RESULTS.: A total of 25 thoracic PSOs were performed (mean: 1.7 PSOs/patient, range: 1-3) in 15 patients (9 M/6 F). The study population had an average age of 56 years (range, 36-81 years) and was followed up after surgery for a mean of 3.5 years (range, 24-75 months). The osteotomies were carried out in the proximal thoracic spine (T2-T4, n = 6), midthoracic spine (T5-T8, n = 12), and distal thoracic spine (T9-T12, n = 7). Mean correction at the PSO for all 25 levels was 16.3 degrees +/- 9.6 degrees . Stratified by region of the spine, thoracic PSO correction was as follows: T2-T4 = 10.7 degrees +/- 15.8 degrees , T5-T8 = 14.7 degrees +/- 4.6 degrees , and T9-T12 = 23.9 degrees +/- 4.1 degrees . Mean thoracic kyphosis (T2-T12 Cobb angle) was improved from 75.7 degrees +/- 30.9 degrees to 54.3 degrees +/- 21.4 degrees resulting in a significant regional sagittal correction of 21.4 degrees +/- 13.7 degrees (P < 0.005). Global sagittal balance was improved from 106.1 +/- 56.6 to 38.8 +/- 37.0 mm yielding a mean correction of 67.3 +/- 54.7 mm (P < 0.005). One patient, in whom there was segmental translation during osteotomy closure, had a decline in intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials. No patient sustained a temporary or permanent neurologic deficit after surgery. The mean SRS-22 Questionnaire score at final follow-up was 82.4 +/- 10.2. CONCLUSION.: Thoracic PSO can be performed safely. Segmental sagittal correction appears to vary based on the region of the thoracic spine the PSO is performed. The distal thoracic segments, which more closely resemble lumbar segments in morphology, rendered the greatest sagittal correction after PSO, approximately 24 degrees . There was no case of neurologic injury associated with thoracic PSO, and clinical outcomes according to the SRS-22 instrument were generally favorable.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 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

Citations60
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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