Failure of External Spinal Skeletal Fixation to Improve Predictability of Lumbar Arthrodesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether lumbar arthrodesis can relieve isolated low-back pain in the absence of focal neurological findings or instability is unclear. The results of published studies are also inconsistent with regard to whether temporary back-pain relief with external spinal skeletal fixation can predict lasting back-pain relief after arthrodesis. This report presents the results, with regard to clinical benefit and complications, of more than 100 external spinal skeletal fixation procedures undertaken as a prelude to lumbar arthrodesis. METHODS: The records of all patients who underwent external spinal skeletal fixation between 1989 and 1999 were reviewed with attention to perioperative complications, pain relief from the test procedure, the clinical benefit from a subsequent arthrodesis, and the functional status after the arthrodesis. Analyzed data included the frequency of neurological complications and infections and the benefit (Prolo score) after staged spinal arthrodesis in patients who underwent arthrodesis after temporarily experiencing pain relief with the test procedure. RESULTS: A total of 103 external spinal skeletal fixation procedures were undertaken. Neurological complications occurred in two procedures (2%); one resulted in permanent sciatica. Infections occurred in five patients (5%). Sixty patients experienced pain relief during the external fixation test, but only twenty-seven of forty-nine patients who went on to have an arthrodesis and had sufficient follow-up reported that they were doing well at a minimum of one year later. In no case did the external spinal skeletal fixation procedure cause a permanent increase in low-back pain. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of this analysis, external spinal skeletal fixation should not be used as a predictor of pain relief after lumbar arthrodesis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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".