Long-term outcomes in primary spinal osteochondroma: a multicenter study of 27 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT Clinical outcomes in patients with primary spinal osteochondromas are limited to small series and sporadic case reports. The authors present data on the first long-term investigation of spinal osteochondroma cases. METHODS An international, multicenter ambispective study on primary spinal osteochondroma was performed. Patients were included if they were diagnosed with an osteochondroma of the spine and received surgical treatment between October 1996 and June 2012 with at least 1 follow-up. Perioperative prognostic variables, including patient age, tumor size, spinal level, and resection, were analyzed in reference to long-term local recurrence and survival. Tumor resections were compared using Enneking appropriate (EA) or Enneking inappropriate surgical margins. RESULTS Osteochondromas were diagnosed in 27 patients at an average age of 37 years. Twenty-two lesions were found in the mobile spine (cervical, thoracic, or lumbar) and 5 in the fixed spine (sacrum). Twenty-three cases (88%) were benign tumors (Enneking tumor Stages 1-3), whereas 3 (12%) exhibited malignant changes (Enneking tumor Stages IA-IIB). Sixteen patients (62%) underwent en bloc treatment-that is, wide or marginal resection-and 10 (38%) underwent intralesional resection. Twenty-four operations (92%) followed EA margins. No one received adjuvant therapy. Two patients (8%) experienced recurrences: one in the fixed spine and one in the mobile spine. Both recurrences occurred in latent Stage 1 tumors following en bloc resection. No osteochondroma-related deaths were observed. CONCLUSIONS In the present study, most patients underwent en bloc resection and were treated as EA cases. Both recurrences occurred in the Stage 1 tumor cohort. Therefore, although benign in character, osteochondromas still require careful management and thorough follow-up.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".