Pre-, Intra-, and Postoperative Three-Dimensional Evaluation of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors measured and compared the pre-, intra-, and postoperative three-dimensional shape of the spine during corrective surgery to quantify the specific contribution of positioning, anesthesia, surgical exposure, surgical instrumentation, and postural adaptation of the thoracic and lumbar spine. In 58 adolescent girls with idiopathic scoliosis undergoing corrective surgery by a posterior approach, the three-dimensional geometry of the thoracic and lumbar spine was documented in the standing position before and after surgery using a three-dimensional reconstruction technique based on multiplanar radiography, and the intraoperative three-dimensional geometry was measured using a three-dimensional magnetic digitizer before and after installation of the first rod. Prone positioning, anesthesia, and surgical exposure are responsible for a considerable decrease in all curves in the frontal and sagittal plane. Instrumentation with the first rod produces additional substantial and favorable three-dimensional changes with partial restoration of the normal sagittal curves and sagittal shift of the plane of maximum deformity. Although no loss of correction was observed in the frontal plane when patients resumed their standing position, a "spring-back" effect on the spine was noted in the sagittal plane and a loss of three-dimensional correction was seen in the orientation of the plane of maximum deformity. Surgeons can use the knowledge of these various changes to achieve better results by more careful attention to the preoperative positioning of patients and to curve correction in the sagittal plane when instrumentation is applied to the spine.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".