A Comparison of Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion Comparing Autograft, Autogenous Laminectomy Bone With Bone Marrow Aspirate, and Calcium Sulphate With Bone Marrow Aspirate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective clinical study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the fusion rate of autogenous laminectomy bone chips and calcium sulfate pellets could be augmented by bone marrow aspirate (BMA) in one-level lumbar posterolateral fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An in vivo animal study has indicated that BMA augments spinal arthrodesis. METHODS: Forty-three patients undergoing surgery for instrumented one-level fusion with decompression were divided into 2 groups. Autologous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) was placed in 1 posterolateral gutter (control), while on the other side (test), an equal quantity of laminectomy bone chips mixed with BMA while harvesting the iliac bone graft (group 1) or an equal quantity of calcium sulfate pellets soaked in BMA (group 2) was placed. Radiographic assessment was performed every 3 months (3-12 months) and then annually. The statuses of fusion on either side of the vertebra were compared. RESULTS: For the 21 patients in group 1, 18 (85.7%) exhibited bone fusion on the test side, and 19 (90.5%) presented evidence of fusion on the control side. Thus, the test side with laminectomy bone chips and BMA achieved a fusion rate similar to that on the control side (P > 0.05). For the 22 patients in group 2, 20 (90.9%) exhibited bone fusion on the control side whereas only 10 (45.5%) demonstrated complete fusion on the test side (P < 0.05), where calcium sulfate and BMA was applied. CONCLUSION: ICBG performs as expected with high fusion rates and laminectomy bone with BMA performs equally as well. Osteoset is significantly inferior to ICBG despite the addition of BMA, which is osteoinductive and has improved fusion rates and osteogenesis in other models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".