MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of the Anatomical Risk for Vertebral Artery Injury Associated With the C2-Pedicle Screw and Atlantoaxial Transarticular Screw

2006· article· en· W1986053296 on OpenAlexaff
Makoto Yoshida, Masashi Neo, Shunsuke Fujibayashi, Takashi Nakamura

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVertebral arteryAtlanto-axial jointFixation (population genetics)Lateral massCervical vertebraeCervical spineSurgeryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. We evaluated the trajectories of atlantoaxial transarticular and C2-pedicle screws in 3 dimensions using computerized tomography. Objective. To compare the anatomic risk for vertebral artery injury associated with C2-pedicle and atlantoaxial transarticular screws. Summary of Background Data. The atlantoaxial fixation technique using C1-lateral mass screws combined with C2-pedicle screws is considered a safer technique for preventing vertebral artery injury than atlantoaxial transarticular fixation. However, few reports have compared the anatomic risk of vertebral artery injury associated with C2-pedicle screws with that of transarticular screws. Methods. A total of 62 consecutive patients with cervical lesions were evaluated using 3-dimensional images reconstructed by a computer-assisted navigation system. We compared the maximum possible diameters of the atlantoaxial transarticular screw and C2-pedicle screw trajectories, and examined whether the maximum possible diameters were limited by the height or width of the bony structure in screw trajectories ≤4 mm in diameter. Results. Mean maximum possible diameters did not differ significantly between the trajectories of 124 atlantoaxial transarticular and 124 C2-pedicle screws. In screw trajectories ≤4 mm in diameter, 57.1% of transarticular screw trajectories were limited by the height of the bony structure, and all pedicle screw trajectories were limited by the width. Conclusions. C2-pedicle screw placement has nearly the same anatomic risk of vertebral artery injury as transarticular screw placement. Preoperative 3-dimensional evaluation may be useful for choosing the best surgical technique. Three-dimensional computerized tomography was used to compare the screw trajectories of atlantoaxial transarticular and C2-pedicle screw placement. C2-pedicle screw placement had nearly the same risk for vertebral artery injury as transarticular screw placement. Preoperative 3-dimensional evaluation may assist in choosing the best surgical technique.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations169
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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