MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regional Differences in Anatomical Landmarks for Placing Anterior Instrumentation of the Thoracic Spine in Both Normal Patients and Patients With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

2006· article· en· W2046906140 on OpenAlexaff
Hong Zhang, Daniel J. Sucato

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSagittal planeVertebraScoliosisThoracic vertebraeAnatomyThoracic spineIdiopathic scoliosisSpinal canalMagnetic resonance imagingRachisRadiologyLumbar vertebraeSurgerySpinal cordLumbar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of patients who had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the thoracic spine, comparing those with a normal straight spine and those with a right thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). OBJECTIVE: To analyze the position of the rib head with respect to the spinal canal and vertebral body in normal patients and those with right thoracic AIS using MRI. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: When placing anterior vertebral body screws in thoracic AIS, the most cephalad screws are most at risk for loosening because of smaller vertebral body size and the position of the rib heads, which may obscure more of the vertebral bodies. To our knowledge, there are no studies defining the relationship of the rib head to the vertebral anatomy in thoracic AIS. METHODS: Transverse MRIs of the vertebral bodies from the 4th thoracic (T4) vertebra to the 12th thoracic (T12) vertebra in normal patients (n = 21) and patients with AIS (n = 21) group were analyzed regarding the following parameters: (1) percent vertebra obscured by rib head (i.e., the percent of the sagittal plane vertebral body length obscured by the overlapping rib head); (2) posterior safe angle, defined as the most posterior angle a screw can be placed, which avoids the spinal canal; and (3) anterior safe angle, defined as the most anteriorly directed screw trajectory that safely obtained good screw purchase. RESULTS: In both the normal and AIS groups, the percent vertebra obscured by rib head significantly decreased from T4 (30% in normal group and 34.7% in AIS group) to T12 (-0.4% in normal group and 3.5% in AIS group) (P < 0.05). The rib head was positioned more anterior to the vertebral body in the cephalad-thoracic spine when compared to a more posterior position in the caudal thoracic spine. In each group, the posterior safe angle significantly decreased from T4 (23 degrees in normal group and 20.8 degrees in AIS group) to T12 (-0.9 degrees in normal group and 2.1 degrees in AIS group) (P < 0.05), while the anterior safe angle significantly increased from T4 (27.5 degrees in normal group and 26.6 degrees in AIS group) to T12 (38.3 degrees in normal group and 38.5 degrees in AIS group) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It is important to understand the relationship of the rib head to the vertebral body to provide-excellent screw purchase within the vertebral body without risking penetration into the spinal canal. In both normal and AIS groups, the relationship of the rib head to the vertebral body and spinal canal changes so that the rib head is positioned more anteriorly in the cephalad-thoracic spine and more posteriorly in the caudal thoracic spine. When placing anterior thoracic screws, at the cephalad- thoracic spine (T4, T5, T6, and T7), removal of rib heads is recommended to allow for good screw purchase. However, at the caudal thoracic spine (T10-T12), staying anterior to the rib head is important to avoid penetration into the spinal canal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207