MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034759433 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000000786

Accuracy of Fluoroscopy Versus Computer-Assisted Navigation for the Placement of Anterior Cervical Pedicle Screws

2015· article· en· W2034759433 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Patton, Randal P. Morris, Yong‐Fang Kuo, Ronald W. Lindsey

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluoroscopyMedicineCadaverFixation (population genetics)Cervical vertebraeConfidence intervalCervical spineSurgeryNuclear medicineRadiologyOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Randomized laboratory cadaver study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of anterior transpedicular screw placement in the cervical spine using conventional fluoroscopy versus computer-assisted navigation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Traditionally, global cervical instability has required anterior and posterior fixation due to the superior biomechanical stability of circumferential constructs. Anterior transpedicular screws (ATPS) have recently been advocated as a single surgical approach. Current clinical publications report using fluoroscopic guidance for screw placement. Computer-assisted navigation (CAN) systems have demonstrated enhanced accuracy of pedicle screw placement at all spine levels but have not been assessed for ATPS. METHODS: The anterior vertebrae of 9 fresh frozen cadaver cervical spines were exposed, preserving the lateral and posterior soft tissue envelope. Nine practicing spine surgeons placed 2.0-mm titanium anterior transpecidular Kirschner wires into the C3-T1 pedicles bilaterally using fluoroscopy or CAN guidance. Specimens were imaged by computed tomography and virtual screws were overlaid on the K-wires. Targeting accuracy was compared between the 2 techniques in all planes using a 5-level grading scale. RESULTS: The percentage of acceptable screw placements for fluoroscopy and CAN was 42.6% and 66.7%, respectively (P = 0.012). Catastrophic screw placement (grade 3 or 4) was 33.3% for fluoroscopy and 16.7% for CAN. In the multivariable model, the accuracy rate was 67% lower for fluoroscopy than for CAN after controlling for other factors (odds ratio: 0.33, 95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.79). CONCLUSION: The accuracy of CAN-guided placement of K-wires for ATPS was superior to placement under fluoroscopic guidance, demonstrating statistically more acceptable screw placements and significantly less catastrophic virtual screws. However, malposition was still high, with potential for vertebral artery and neurological injury in a clinical setting. Further advancement in current ATPS techniques is warranted prior to widespread implementation in a patient setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207