Pressure Mapping as an Outcome Measure for Spinal Surgery in Patients With Myelomeningocele
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on a cohort of 19 myelomeningocele patients undergoing spino-pelvic deformity surgery. OBJECTIVE: To examine if greater curve correction with third generation spinal implants correlate with improved pressure distribution and resolution, or prevention of skin ulcerations in myelomeningocele patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Children born with myelomeningocele have often complex spino-pelvic deformities leading to skin ulcerations. METHODS: A cohort of 19 consecutive wheelchair dependent patients with myelodisplastic spinal deformities, who underwent spinal surgery, was prospectively followed with regular pressure mappings for a minimum of 2 years. Standard spino-pelvic radiologic measurements were obtained. Sitting pressure mappings were obtained over the study period using the Force Sensitive Applications from Vista Medical (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada). Statistical analysis was done using SAS (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). Paired t-test and Wilcox on Signed Rank test was used where applicable. Significance was taken to be P<0.05. RESULTS: Surgery significantly corrected radiographic parameters, specifically, Cobb angle (52%), pelvic obliquity (89%), and to a lesser degree pelvic tilt. Stratifying the data based on fixation type showed that the M-W construct was able to significantly correct pelvic obliquity. While significant changes in radiographic variables were observed after surgery, this was not the case with the various pressure mapping variables. Only minor changes after surgery were observed in the average pressure, maximum pressure, and variable coefficient of pressure. What was observed was an improvement in the overall distribution from anterior/posterior and right/left. While the values only approached statistical significance (P=0.053) for right/left, however, this did not appear to be clinically significant regarding skin ulceration. CONCLUSION: Despite significant surgical corrections in radiographic parameters, these resulted in small changes in pressure distributions and do not appear to influence skin ulceration in the myelomeningocele patient. Pressure mapping may not be a useful tool in predicting outcome of spinal surgery. Factors which were proven to influence pressure distribution are the sagittal pelvic orientation and also achieving coronal spine balance.
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) | 0.000 | 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".