Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to document the rate of infection in our institution after the use of irradiated cancellous allograft or iliac crest bone autograft in vertebral fusion procedures. We also reviewed the pertinence of microbiological culture of cadaveric allograft bone prior to its implantation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recent studies have shown similar postoperative infection rates between allograft and autograft. The pertinence of microbiological culture of allograft bone prior to its implantation is currently controversial. METHODS: Retrospectively, we identified 338 patients who underwent spine fusion procedures for which there was a minimum of a 1-year follow-up. Files from both the neurosurgery and orthopedics divisions of the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke were reviewed during 1999 to 2009. Irradiated allografts were used in 164 patients and autografts were used in 174 patients. Of the 164 allografts implanted, 53 were cultured peroperatively. Postoperative spinal infection was based on documented positive spine cultures at the time of re-exploration for presumed infection. Infection rates were compared using Fisher exact test. RESULTS: From the 53 peroperative cultures, 5 were positive (9.4%) and none of them led to antibiotherapy or surgical revision at 1 year. No significant difference was observed in the rate of surgical site infection at 1 year, after the use of irradiated allografts (1.8%) or autografts (1.7%), P = 1.0. CONCLUSION: Perceived association with infection should not influence the surgeon in bone graft choice for spinal fusion. There is a lack of scientific evidence to recommend for or against routine cultures on allograft implantation in the literature. Our results strongly underline the pertinence of larger multicenter clinical trials to assess the pertinence of peroperative allograft bone culture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".