Occipitocervical reconstruction with the Ohio Medical Instruments Loop: results of a multicenter evaluation in 30 cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Stabilization of the craniocervical junction (CCJ) remains a significant challenge. In this multicenter study, the authors present the results of an evaluation of a precontoured titanium implant, the Ohio Medical Instruments (OMI) Loop, for craniocervical fixation. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective study the authors evaluated 30 patients (16 female, 14 male; mean age 53.8 years) with rheumatoid arthritis (15 cases), traumatic occipitoatlantoaxial instability (six cases), congenital vertebral anomalies (two cases), instability due to basilar invagination in the setting of Chiari malformation (two cases), or Down syndrome (one case), tumor (one case), os odontoideum (two cases), and pseudarthrosis/other (one case), who underwent OMI Loop-assisted occipitocervical reconstruction. The mean follow-up period was 25.4 months (range 6-60 months). A solid reconstruction was achieved in 29 of 30 cases; there was only one case of hardware failure requiring reoperation. Noncritical hardware failure occurred in two patients in whom partial occipital screw backout occurred but did not necessitate reoperation. There were no perioperative neurological complications. One patient (3.3%) experienced a delayed postoperative worsening of myelopathy at 1 year that resolved with further surgery. Postoperatively, in 66.6% of patients the degree of myelopathy remained stable (as measured by American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] scores), whereas 30% improved by one or more ASIA grade. The rate of osseous fusion was 96.6% at a mean follow-up period of 25.4 months. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found that the OMI Loop is a versatile precontoured occipitocervical fixation device that can be applied to a wide range of CCJ lesions. It provides excellent immediate rigid fixation of the CCJ, a high rate of osseous fusion, and a low rate of hardware failure.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".