Failure of a Carbon Fiber–Reinforced Polymer Implant Used for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lumbar interbody fusion is a common procedure owing to the high prevalence of degenerative spinal disorders. During such procedures, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) cages are frequently utilized to fill the void created between adjacent vertebral bodies, to provide mechanical stability, and to carry graft material. Failure of such implants can lead to significant morbidity. We discuss the possible causes leading to the failure of a CFRP cage in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis. Review of a 49-year-old woman who underwent revision anterior lumbar interbody fusion 2 years after posterior instrumentation and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4-L5 and L5-S1. The patient developed pseudarthrosis at the two previously fused levels with failure of the posterior instrumentation. Revision surgery reveled failure with fragmentation of the CFRP cage at the L5-S1 level. CFRP implants can break if mechanical instability or nonunion occurs in the spinal segments, thus emphasizing the need for optimizing medical management and meticulous surgical technique in achieving stability.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".