MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037650733 · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31816043d1

The Prevalence of Wrong Level Surgery Among Spine Surgeons

2008· article· en· W2037650733 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryAccreditationGeneral surgerySpinal surgeryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. A questionnaire study. Objective. To evaluate the prevalence of wrong level surgery among spine surgeons and their use of preventive measures to avoid its occurrence. Summary of Background Data. Wrong site surgery fails to improve the patient's symptoms and has medical, emotional, social, and legal implications. Organizations such as the North American Spine Society and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations have established guidelines to prevent wrong site surgery. Spine surgeons' compliance with these guidelines and the prevalence of wrong-level spine surgery have not been investigated previously. Methods. All members of the American Academy of Neurologic Surgeons (n = 3505) were sent an anonymous, 30-question survey with a self-addressed stamped envelope. Results. A total of 415 (12%) surgeons responded. Sixty-four surgeons (15%) reported that, at least once, they had prepared the incorrect spine level, but noticed the mistake before making the incision. Two hundred seven (50%) reported that they had done 1 or more wrong level surgeries during their career. From an estimated 1,300,000 spine procedures, 418 wrong level spine operations had been performed, with a prevalence of 1 in 3110 procedures. The majority of the incorrect level procedures were performed on the lumbar region (71%), followed by the cervical (21%), and the thoracic (8%) regions. One wrong level surgery led to permanent disability, and 73 cases resulted in legal action or monetary settlement to the patient (17%). Conclusion. There is a high prevalence of wrong level surgery among spine surgeons; 1 of every 2 spine surgeons may perform a wrong level surgery during his or her career. Although all spine surgeons surveyed report using at least 1 preventive action, the following measures are highly recommended but inconsistently adopted: direct preoperative communication with the patient by the surgeon, marking of the intended site, and the use of intraoperative verification radiograph. The authors conducted a questionnaire study to evaluate the prevalence of wrong level spine surgery. From an estimated 1,300,000 procedures, 418 wrong level operations were performed, with a prevalence of 1 in 3110. To prevent wrong level surgery, the authors recommend direct preoperative communication between patient and surgeon, marking of the site, and the use of intraoperative verification radiograph.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.266 · 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