Hip and Spine Surgery is of Questionable Value in Spina Bifida: An Evidence-based Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although many children with spina bifida and associated scoliosis or dislocated hips undergo spine or hip surgery, the benefits are uncertain. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose was to perform an evidence-based review on the benefits and risks of surgery for dislocated hips and scoliosis in spina bifida. METHODS: I performed a Medline(®) and Embase(®) search from 1950 to 2009 for Level I to Level III studies investigating the benefits and risks of surgery for scoliosis and hip dislocation in patients with spina bifida. When available, I extracted types of surgery, complication rates, functional outcomes of seating, walking, and overall physical function. All treatment recommendations received a Grade of Recommendation: Grade A (consistent Level I studies); Grade B (consistent Level II and III studies); Grade C (consistent level IV and V studies); or Grade I (insufficient or contradictory studies). RESULTS: Combined anterior and posterior surgery had lower rates of nonunion for scoliosis. Although there may be some benefit in seating, overall physical function measured in a different and nonstandardized fashion was not much changed and major complication rates, including nonunion and infections for scoliosis surgery, exceed 50% in several studies. For dislocated hips, the impact on walking ability appears related to contracture (not dislocation). Surgery for hip dislocation did not improve walking ability. The literature provides no guidance on the best treatment for unilateral dislocation. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of scoliosis surgery are uncertain (Grade I). Spine surgery, if performed, should be anterior and posterior (Grade B). An all-pedicle approach for scoliosis surgery may be effective (Level I). Hip reduction surgery did not improve walking (Grade B) but may be appropriate in low-level unilateral dislocation (Level I).
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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".