Failure of Percutaneous Remodeling of the Ligamentum Flavum and Lamina for Neurogenic Claudication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous remodeling of the ligamentum flavum and lamina (PRLL), commercially known as minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild technique), relies on fluoroscopy and epidural contrast to direct surgical instruments via a 6-mm cannula. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of PRLL and present, to our knowledge, the first reported imaging findings after PRLL. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of PRLL for neurogenic claudication. Primary outcomes were Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 12 version 2.0 health survey, and visual analog scale for pain at 26 weeks. Analgesic use was also assessed. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 12 weeks. Long-term failure, defined as the poststudy need for secondary surgery, was assessed up to 18 months. RESULTS: Ten subjects with an average age of 64 years (range, 41-81 years) were treated between September 2008 and January 2009. There were no major adverse events. Mean postoperative visual analog scale score remained significantly reduced throughout 26 weeks (P =.015, analysis of variance). Mean postoperative Oswestry Disability Index was also improved by 1 week and remained significant throughout 26 weeks (P = .024; analysis of variance). However, there was a trend toward increased reliance on narcotic type medications postoperatively. Imaging studies did not show significant decompression of the spinal canal in any patient. In the poststudy period, recurrent claudication requiring laminectomy developed in 6 patients (60%). CONCLUSION: Throughout 26 weeks, pain and disability scores were decreased; however, PRLL did not improve the degree of stenosis on imaging studies. Although PRLL appears to be safe in this small cohort of patients, poststudy outcomes indicate that the failure rate is unacceptably high.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".