The Effect of Intraoperative Traction During Posterior Spinal Instrumentation and Fusion for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study comparing patients having traction and a control group not having traction during posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion (PSIF) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of intraoperative traction on surgical correction of AIS. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: When the Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation system was introduced, the use of intraoperative traction was advocated. However, there is no specific report documenting the effect of intraoperative traction on the correction of AIS. METHODS: The medical and radiologic records of 140 AIS patients treated by PSIF were reviewed. Forty of these patients had intraoperative traction using a head halter associated with lower extremity skin traction. The radiologic outcome was compared between the two groups intraoperatively (before instrumentation with the first rod) and after surgery using Student t tests (level of significance = 0.05). RESULTS: The intraoperative and postoperative corrections of the coronal primary Cobb angle were similar for both groups, although the patients in the traction group had smaller preoperative Cobb angles and more flexible curves and were instrumented with more screws. The postoperative thoracic kyphosis was significantly increased in both groups. The lumbar lordosis at the 1-year follow-up was maintained in the control group, but it was significantly decreased in the traction group. CONCLUSION: The authors do not recommend the routine use of intraoperative traction using a head halter combined with skin traction for all AIS patients undergoing PSIF. However, it could be helpful in selected cases, such as in patients having pelvic obliquity and requiring instrumentation of the pelvis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".