MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Prospective Cohort Analysis of Adjacent Vertebral Body Bone Mineral Density in Lumbar Surgery Patients With or Without Instrumented Posterolateral Fusion

2005· article· en· W2014462689 on OpenAlexaff
Kern Singh, Howard S. An, Dino Samartzis, Ahmad Nassr, Jason Provus, M. D. Hickey, Gunnar B. J. Andersson

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLaminotomyLumbarSurgeryBone mineralDiscectomySpinal fusionLumbar vertebraeProspective cohort studyLaminectomyOsteoporosisSpinal cordInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. A prospective, cohort study of 11 patients who underwent either a posterior lumbar spinal fusion with instrumentation (n = 7) or a lumbar laminotomy and discectomy alone (n = 4) and who were evaluated by dual energy radiograph absorptiometry (DEXA) to determine bone mineral density (BMD) at the adjacent three cephalad vertebral levels. Objectives. To determine long-term BMD changes that occur at the adjacent three levels above an instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion or an isolated laminotomy and lumbar discectomy. Summary of Background Data. No long-term prospective study has evaluated the affects of instrumented lumbar fusions on bone remodeling at adjacent vertebral levels. Several studies in animals and humans have reported a decrease in BMD at the adjacent level during the first 6 months after spinal fusion with a return to baseline at 1-year follow-up in up to 60% of patients. Methods. DEXA was performed initially at a mean postoperative follow-up of 4 years (range, 2.3–5.5 years) and again at a mean of 10.8 years (range, 9.1–2.4 years). Eleven patients were divided into two groups: laminotomy and discectomy (n = 4) and instrumented posterior spinal fusion (n = 7). All patients underwent surgical procedures at the L4–L5 or L5–S1 levels with DEXA analysis being performed on the adjacent three cephalad levels. The discectomy group (mean age, 57.8 years) underwent lumbar hemilaminotomy without fusion whereas the other group (mean age, 60 years) underwent pedicle-screw instrumentation and posterolateral lumbar fusion. Peripheral sites, including the femoral neck, were included in the DEXA analysis to normalize for individual differences in bone mineral metabolism. Results. At the mean 10.8-year follow-up, the fusion group was noted to have at the adjacent level, two levels cephalad, and three levels cephalad normalized BMDs of 1.47, 1.39, and 1.27, respectively. A 14.8%, 10.8%, and 9.5% increase respectively in normalized BMD was observed when compared with the mean 4-year fusion values (P < 0.05). This increase was also noted on comparative T-score, Z-score, and absolute BMD values (P < 0.05). The discectomy group when evaluated revealed no statistically significant change from the mean 4 to 10.8-year follow-up (BMD, normalized BMD, T-score, Z-score). No statistically significant difference was noted in hip BMD at the mean 4-year and 10.8-year follow-up (1.05 versus 1.03), suggesting that the effects were local. Conclusions. The local BMD adjacent to an instrumented lumbar fusion is increased at a mean of 10.8-years after surgery. There is a gradual decrease in BMD changes with increasing distance from the fusion level. Alterations in fusion site biomechanics and modulus mismatch between the host bone and the spinal instrumentation most likely result in chronic, localized bone remodeling with an increased BMD that decreases the greater the distance from the fusion mass. The long-term affects on adjacent level bone mineral density (BMD) from instrumented posterolateral fusion and nonfusion in isolated laminotomy and discectomy procedures in lumbar spine surgery have not been well understood nor investigated. This study demonstrated that BMD significantly increases at the adjacent cephalad vertebral levels in instrumented posterolateral fusion at a mean of 10.8 years after surgery. Furthermore, in this group, BMD was greatest at the immediate adjacent vertebral level, and a decrease in BMD was noted in vertebrae with increasing distance from the instrumented fused level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207