Recovery of Pulmonary Function Following Endoscopic Anterior Scoliosis Correction: Evaluation at 3, 6, 12, and 24 Months After Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. A series of patients with scoliosis undergoing endoscopic anterior instrumentation and fusion undertaking repeated pulmonary function assessments. Objective. To assess recovery of pulmonary function in the 2 years following endoscopic anterior scoliosis correction. Summary of Background Data. Recent studies have found that pulmonary function returns to preoperative levels 12–24 months following endoscopic anterior scoliosis correction, and a small improvement in forced expiratory volume (FEV1) has also been reported. Methods. A series of 44 patients with endoscopic anterior scoliosis correction had pulmonary function tests before surgery, and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1, and total lung capacity (TLC) were measured. Nonparametric statistical analysis was used to investigate changes in pulmonary function between successive assessments. Results. Pulmonary function decreased by approximately 10% at 3 months after surgery. At 24 months after surgery, FVC and FEV1 recovered to 5% to 8% higher than preoperative levels, while TLC returned to preoperative levels. Statistically significant improvements in most pulmonary function values occurred between 3 and 6, and 6–12 months. Improvements in mean FVC, FEV1, and TLC continue between 12 and 24 months, although only the increase in absolute FVC for this time is statistically significant. Conclusions. Endoscopic anterior scoliosis surgery has no lasting negative effect on pulmonary function, and with prolonged follow-up, pulmonary capacity improves beyond preoperative levels. Pulmonary function tests were performed preoperatively, and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively for a series of 44 patients who underwent endoscopic anterior scoliosis surgery. Forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume-1 both decrease initially, followed by recovery to 5% to 8% higher than preoperative values at 24 months. Therefore, the endoscopic procedure has no lasting negative effect on pulmonary function, and with prolonged follow-up, pulmonary capacity improves beyond preoperative levels.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".