Comparison of Post-Operative Lordosis with the PEEK Cage and the Cervical Plate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The maintenance of post-operative lordosis has been shown to be a key factor in decreasing adjacent level disc stress. Previous studies of the PEEK (polyether ketone) cage have used intervertebral bony fusion as the primary measure of surgical success; however, little is known about its effects on spinal curvature. Our objective was to compare the PEEK cage to the cervical plate with respect to the maintenance of cervical lordosis at one year. Secondary outcomes included fusion and complication rates. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent ACDF (anterior cervical discectomy and fusion) by two different methods; 13 patients were treated with the PEEK cage, and 22 with allograft and plating. RESULTS: Patient and treatment characteristics were similar in both groups. Average global lordotic curvature (C2-C7) was increased by 1.7 degrees for the PEEK cage and decreased by 1.6 degrees for the plate after an average follow-up of 12.46 and 14.95 months, respectively. Regional lordosis for the PEEK cage and plate was decreased by 2.5 and 2.1 degrees, respectively for the same time period. These differences did not achieve statistical significance. Bony fusion was observed in all patients. One patient in each group developed persistent mild dysphagia. CONCLUSIONS: The PEEK cage is comparable to the anterior cervical plate in the maintenance of post-operative cervical lordosis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".