Comparison of mechanical motion profiles following instrumented fusion and non-instrumented fusion at the L4-5 segment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the difference in motion profiles between instrumented and non-instrumented fusion of the lumbar spine. METHOD: In vivo retrospective radiological analysis of dynamic (flexion-extension) lateral plain films was performed in different lumbar spine fusion types. Twenty-eight patients underwent lumbar fusion surgery at the L4/5 level. Fourteen patients underwent anterior fusion surgery without implantation, and the others underwent posterior instrumented fusion. Segmental angular motion was measured at the fused and adjacent levels using dynamic plain lateral film 2 years after operation. RESULTS: The anterior uninstrumented fusion group showed mean 2.0 degrees of segmental angular motion at the fused level compared with mean of 0.8 degrees in the posterior instrumented fusion group (P < 0.05). In contrast, at the proximal adjacent level, decreased angular motion (mean 7.7 degrees ) was noted in the anterior uninstrumented fusion group compared with mean 11.6 degrees in the posterior instrumented fusion group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that differing stiffness of fusion segments could cause different mechanical motion profiles at adjacent segments.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".