A Three-Dimensional Radiographic Comparison of Cotrel–Dubousset and Colorado Instrumentations for the Correction of Idiopathic Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective clinical study comparing two instrumentation systems for the correction of idiopathic scoliosis. OBJECTIVES: To measure the short-term three-dimensional changes in the shape of the spine after corrective surgery and compare the Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation to the more recent Colorado instrumentation to determine whether one system provides better three-dimensional correction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adequate three-dimensional correction of scoliotic deformities has been reported with the Cortrel-Dubousset instrumentation system. During the past decade, a new generation of more versatile and user-friendly spinal implants has appeared, but there are no reports available to indicate whether similar or better correction can be obtained with these newer systems. METHODS: The three-dimensional geometry of the thoracic and lumbar spine was documented in the standing position using a three-dimensional reconstruction technique based on multiplanar radiography in 67 adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis undergoing correction by a posterior approach. Changes in spinal shape were measured 3 days before and 1 month after the surgery in 31 patients with Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation and 36 patients with Colorado instrumentation. RESULTS: In both groups, adequate three-dimensional correction of the scoliotic deformities was documented for thoracic and lumbar curves, with significant changes in the frontal plane, in the plane of maximum curvature, and in its orientation. When comparing both groups, better correction was obtained in the frontal plane with the Colorado instrumentation (65% vs. 48% with Cotrel-Dubousset), a finding that may be explained by the significantly greater proportion of pedicle screws used in this group. CONCLUSION: Both instrumentation techniques achieve an effective and comparable three-dimensional correction of the scoliotic deformities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".