Posterior Kyphectomy for Myelomeningocele With Anterior Placement of Fixation: A Retrospective Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kyphosis in myelomeningocele is a rare and difficult problem. Many strategies have been used with no single procedure universally agreed on. Techniques involving anterior and posterior fixation may provide better fusion. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We describe a novel procedure for anteroposterior kyphectomy in patients with myelomeningocele. Apical posterior kyphectomy is followed by the insertion of two rods distally into the vertebral bodies and sacrum. Sublaminar wires are placed superiorly and the kyphosis is reduced by sequential tightening. We determined kyphosis correction and intraoperative blood loss for this new procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 22 patients (average age, 7.6 years [range, 2-17 years]) who underwent apical kyphectomy from 1982 to 2008. Charts were examined and radiographs measured preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at final followup. Followup averaged 6.4 years (range, 0-14 years) with 19 patients having at least 2 years of followup. RESULTS: Kyphosis decreased from a mean of 123° (range, 79°-163°) preoperatively to 40° (range, 13°-92°) immediately postoperatively and was a mean of 60° (range, 14°-126°) at final followup. Operating time was 248 minutes (range, 180-345 minutes), estimated blood loss was 765 mL (range, 140-2100 mL), and length of stay was 14 days (range, 1-57 days). Ten of the 22 patients had complications with eight requiring reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: This anteroposterior kyphectomy provided a high level of kyphosis correction, which was largely maintained over the study period. Blood loss, surgical time, and complication rates were acceptable as compared with other techniques reported in the literature.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".