Early Retropulsion of Titanium-Threaded Cages After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Two patients had postoperative posterior migration of titanium fusion cages after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. They underwent a repeat posterior procedure and posterior fusion with pedicle screws. OBJECTIVE: To suggest a treatment for posterior migration of titanium-threaded cages causing spinal stenosis after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of titanium fusion cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion is gaining popularity as a technique for arthrodesis. The literature contains only a few reports concerning complications associated with their use. METHODS: Two patients had retropulsion of titanium threaded cages, ten days and 2 months after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. The retropulsed cages compressing the dura, caused sudden onset of back pain and radiating pain to the lower extremities. Both patients underwent repeat posterior procedure that included repositioning of the cages and posterior fusion with pedicle screws. RESULTS: Symptoms of back and leg pain subsided after repositioning of the cages and application of the pedicle screws. CONCLUSIONS: A repeat posterior approach and repositioning of the retropulsed titanium fusion cages in addition to posterior fusion with pedicle screws successfully managed this complication.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 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".