MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2206205101

[Postoperative compressive spinal epidural hematomas. 15 cases and a review of the literature].

2000· review· en· W2206205101 on OpenAlexaff
François Cabana, Pointillart, Jean-Marc Vital, J Sénégas

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryLaminectomyLumbarSpinal canalSpinal cordRadicular painAnesthesia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: In the literature, the frequency of postoperative compressive spinal epidural hematomas (SEH) appearing very low, we conducted the present study to determine the frequency of this complication in their unit and look for causative and predisposing factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Among the 1,487 spinal operations performed in our unit between September 1997 and August 1998, fifteen patients had postoperative compressive SEH; their files were retrospectively analyzed regarding the initial intervention, postoperative period, revision operation and neurologic follow-up. RESULTS: Five women and ten men were involved ranging in age from 47 to 70 years (average, 59.5 years). The primary intervention concerned the cervical spine in one case, the thoracic spine in seven and the lumbar spine in seven. Ten of the fifteen cases including all seven of the thoracic SEH (performed for compressive metastatic epiduritis) involved a laminectomy. A stenotic canal was the indication for the primary intervention in six of the seven lumbar cases. The average delay before onset of symptoms was 1.5 hours, 3.7 hours, and 5.3 hours after the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar interventions, respectively. The clinical pattern began with segmental pain rapidly followed first by bilateral radicular sensory deficit, then unilateral or bilateral motor deficit, except in the patients with thoracic SEH in whom segmental pain was followed by signs of cord impingement. Excluding the four cases in which diagnosis was retarded by work-up examinations (3 cases) or a misleading picture (1 case), revision surgery was performed from 1.25 to 4 hours after onset of symptoms (average, 2.75 hours). In the patients for whom reoperation was delayed, SEH resulted in permanent complete paralysis or sphincter dysfunction. In contrast, eight of the ten patients who were reoperated within four hours of the onset of symptoms either recovered completely or recovered their former neurologic status. DISCUSSION: Compressive SEH after spinal surgery is rare, only 41 cases having been reported aside from the series of Deburge et al. In the literature, the frequency is around 1 to 2 for 1000 operations for some authors, as opposed to 3 p. 100 and 6 p. 100 found by two other groups. The 1 p. 100 of the present series is close to the latter values. Nonetheless, it is probably important to take the type of surgery into account, as shown by the current series in which SEH occurred after 5.9 p. 100 of the operations for metastasis, but only once out of 304 anterior cervical interventions. To reduce the risk as much as possible, it is important to be aware of the factors that may contribute to this complication. Several recommendations concerning prevention of SEH are thus discussed. Once SEH has occurred, the only modifiable prognostic factor appears to be the delay before reintervention. CONCLUSION: Although postoperative SEH is relatively rare, it may have dramatic consequences. In our opinion, reintervention must be performed as soon as possible after the onset of neurologic deficit, the work-up investigations only prolonging the critical surgical delay, which is probably the only alterable prognostic factor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→French-language works237,207→