Lumbar Vertebral Hemangioma Causing Cauda Equina Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Case report. OBJECTIVES: To report a case of lumbar hemangioma causing neurogenic claudication and early cauda equina, managed with hemostatic vertebroplasty and posterior decompression. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: This is the first report to our knowledge of a lumbar hemangioma causing neurogenic claudication and early cauda equina syndrome. Most hemangiomas causing neurologic symptoms occur in thoracic spine and cause spinal cord compression. Vertebroplasty as a method of hemostasis and for providing mechanical stability in this situation has not been discussed previously in the literature. METHODS: L4 hemangioma was diagnosed in a 64-year-old woman with severe neurogenic claudication and early cauda equina syndrome. Preoperative angiograms showed no embolizable vessels. Posterior decompression was performed followed by bilateral transpedicular vertebroplasty. The patient received postoperative radiation to prevent recurrence. RESULTS: Complete relief of neurogenic claudication and cauda equina with less than 100 mL of blood loss. CONCLUSION: A lumbar hemangioma of the vertebral body, although rare, can cause neurogenic claudication and cauda equina syndrome. Intraoperative vertebroplasty can be an effective method of hemostasis and provide stability of the vertebra following posterior decompression.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".