Retethering in Children after Sectioning of the Filum Terminale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Sectioning of the filum terminale is performed when spinal cord tethering is suspected, sometimes without clinical symptoms. Retethering can occur and require reoperation due to the presentation of either recurrent or new symptoms. The purpose of this institutional review was to identify the retethering rate in children, especially in those who were initially asymptomatic, and to discuss the role of surgery. METHODS: The medical records of all children at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) who underwent tethered cord surgery between 1978 and 2009 for a thickened filum terminale were retrospectively reviewed, as well as those who retethered. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients with a mean age of 4.3 years underwent a low lumbar single or partial laminectomy for sectioning of the filum terminale; 44 patients (30.1%) were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, 51.4% had bladder and bowel dysfunction, 26.7% had neuroorthopedic findings, 15.8% had pain and 6.2% had progressive scoliosis; 11 children with a median age of 8.9 years had symptoms of retethering requiring reoperation (median time to retether was 4.3 years) and 4 were initially asymptomatic. Repeat surgery was successful at alleviating the new symptoms that occurred as a result of retethering. CONCLUSIONS: Of the 146 patients at CHEO who underwent surgery, 7.5% retethered, with 36% being initially asymptomatic. Those operated in the first year of life were not found to be at a higher risk. The level of the conus medullaris did not influence the rate or retethering or urological dysfunction. Children who were initially asymptomatic improved after surgery for retethering, but may not have required surgery in the first place.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".