Unilateral removal of pars interarticularis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Lumbar radiculopathy secondary to foraminal entrapment can be treated by unilateral removal of the overlying pars interarticularis. The authors prospectively evaluated the outcome after this procedure. METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive patients underwent unilateral resection of the pars interarticularis between August 1999 and July 2002. In 18 patients acute foraminal disc herniations compressed the nerve root against the superior pedicle; in the other 18 foraminal stenosis was secondary to degenerative changes. All patients, at each visit, completed the following questionnaires: visual analog scale for overall, leg, and back pain; the Prolo Functional Economic Rating scale; and the Pain Rating Index (PRI) of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. At 1 year, leg pain improved in 33 patients (91%). Low-back pain appeared or worsened in eight patients (22%; one in the acute herniation group and seven in the chronic degenerative group). Only one patient required lumbar fusion for pain. The Prolo economic and function scores improved in 21 (58%) and 27 (75%) patients, respectively. The PRI scores improved in 30 cases (83%). No spondylolisthesis was observed at any level at which resection had been performed. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral removal of the pars interarticularis is effective in relieving lumbar radicular symptoms in patients with intraforaminal entrapment. The incidence of low-back pain in patients with acute foraminal disc herniations does not increase as a result of this procedure. In patients with degenerative foraminal stenosis, unilateral resection of the pars interarticularis may be a better alternative to facetectomy and segmental fusion. This procedure may be a useful tool in spine surgery.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".