MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997553839 · doi:10.1097/bsd.0b013e318211ffa6

Impact of Prone Surgical Positioning on the Scoliotic Spine

2011· article· en· W1997553839 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Driscoll, Carl‐Éric Aubin, Fanny Canet, Hubert Labelle, Jean Dansereau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustinePolytechnique Montréal
FundersEmory University
KeywordsMedicineSagittal planeCoronal planeRadiographyProne positionOrthodonticsPelvisLordosisScoliosisAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of patient-specific prone positioning on the sagittal and coronal curves of scoliotic spines, including the impact of various patient and surgical frame factors. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prone operative positioning has been shown to impact the geometry of various individual spinal segments. Its impact on global spinal geometry and influential factors remains unknown. METHODS: Lateral and coronal radiographs were acquired of 6 scoliotic patients while standing, prone on a dynamically adjustable surgical frame and intraoperatively on the Relton-Hall frame. Standing lateral bending radiographs were also acquired. Lordosis, kyphosis, and Cobb angles were measured in each position. Personalized finite element models (FEMs), including the spine, ribcage, pelvis, and lower limbs were generated for each patient based on their standing radiographs. The FEM's ability to reproduce prone spinal geometry was evaluated by using different values of intervertebral disc elastic moduli: published, optimized based on lateral bending radiographs and optimized based on prone radiographs. The 6 FEMs were then exploited to study the impact of surgical frame cushion configuration, standing curve magnitudes, and patient weight on spinal geometry changes due to prone positioning. RESULTS: All coronal and sagittal curves decreased in the prone position; averaging 12% in lordosis, 19% in kyphosis, 7%, 14%, and 26%, respectively, for proximal thoracic, main thoracic, and thoracolumbar/lumbar Cobb angles. FEM prone simulations yielded best results when optimized by using the prone position radiographs (Δ<5 degrees for all segmental curves). Lateral bending optimization yielded similar results by using published properties. Surgical frame cushion configuration, standing curve magnitudes, and patient weight all had an important impact on spinal geometries with the exception of thoracic cushion longitudinal position. A strong correlation (R=0.86) was found between standing kyphosis and its reduction in the prone position. CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning results in a reduction of all spinal segmental curves which is dependent on a number of patient and surgical frame factors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spinal Disorders & TechniquesSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207