Clinical Efficacy of the Vertebral Wedge Osteotomy for the Fusionless Treatment of Paralytic Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Pre-post intervention study using outcome measure design. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and functional impact of a fusionless treatment for paralytic scoliosis at 2-year follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: It has been shown that 67% of pediatric patients with progressive paralytic scoliosis require spinal fusion to correct the curve. However, maintenance of spinal flexibility, motion, and potential growth is desirable. METHODS: Fourteen patients with scoliosis secondary to spinal cord injury or myelodysplasia underwent a fusionless vertebral wedge osteotomy. Thirteen patients were available for minimum 2-year follow-up, using standard scoliosis radiographs. The functional impact of the procedure was evaluated using the Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument (PODCI), the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). RESULTS: At a minimum 2-year follow-up, 10 patients of 13 (77%) had improvement of greater than 5 degrees in their coronal Cobb angle. Two (15%) patients' curves measured the same (+/-5 degrees). One patient's curve had worsened by 12 degrees as compared to the preoperative Cobb angle. The overall average correction of the 13 patients was 56.1%. Two patients required fusion with an average delay to fusion of 30 months. At current follow-up, range of motion across the treated levels averaged 43 degrees (range 8 degrees to 103 degrees). The FIM showed no changes pre to post, and the PODCI scores showed some increases at 2-year follow-up. Clinical and statistical improvement in performance and satisfaction scores was seen pre to post on the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. CONCLUSION: Vertebral wedge osteotomy is potentially an effective treatment option for paralytic scoliosis. At 2-year follow-up, there was no loss of function as measured by the PODCI and FIM, and there was improvement in the COPM. Cobb angle measurements were either improved or maintained in 12 of 13 patients. Although 2 patients required fusion, they had an average of 2.5 years of subsequent growth before surgery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".