Bowel Injury following Lumbar Discectomy using Minimally Invasive Retractors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prevalence of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation is 1-3% in the adult population. When conservative therapy (e.g., physiotherapy, anti-inflammatories, epidural injections, etc.) fails, open microsurgical discectomy is regarded as the treatment of choice.With this procedure, the incidence of injury to visceral bowel is reported to be 3.8 per 10,000 cases. With the recent advent of tubular retractor systems, an increasing number of surgeons are using this minimally invasive procedure to replace traditional open microsurgical discectomy. The advantages include a smaller skin incision and a muscle splitting rather than muscle incising technique. As a result post-operative pain, blood loss and length of hospital stay may decrease significantly. Multiple studies have compared the two surgical techniques with regards to their clinical outcomes. The results of these studies reveal equal if not superior clinical outcomes with the minimally invasive technique. Despite the success of the minimally invasive microdiscectomy, none of the studies reported any intraoperative complications using this novel technique.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".