MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319048145 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100009781

Delayed Neurologic Complications of Vertebral Bone Cement Injections

2010· article· en· W2319048145 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ian B. Ross, Igor Fineman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCementBone cementAction (physics)SurgeryHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minimally invasive techniques have changed many surgical paradigms.In some instances, they have enabled surgeons to perform procedures that would otherwise be impossible.Elsewhere, they have minimized potential morbidity.In the field of neurological surgery, deep brain stimulation would fit in the former category and endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms the latter.Reinforcement of pathological fractures of the vertebral axis, usually with polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) injection, provides instant fixation of unstable and painful fractures and is usually well tolerated by patients.This technique, performed either as vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty, affords both of the aforementioned advantages and has therefore been a welcome addition to the surgical armamentarium.Significant improvement in pain is reported in about 90% of patients after PMMA vertebral body embolization for osteoporotic compression fractures 1 .Benefit appears to be durable, as evidenced by a study with a mean follow-up of 48 months 2 .The potential for complications, however, is not negligible.These include pulmonary venous embolism and spinal cord or nerve root compression from aberrant PMMA.The literature suggests that these complications are rare 1 .Symptomatic pulmonary embolism typically manifests itself rapidly and, similarily, one would expect significant PMMA in the spinal canal to cause symptoms right after the injection.Neurological problems associated with PMMA vertebral injections may, however, manifest themselves at a later date 3 .It is important that practitioners of this technique recognize when a patient is having an adverse event.We report here two patients with delayed symptomatic lesions that were, eventually, treated surgically and improved clinically. CASE REPORTS Case 1An 83-year-old woman with osteoporosis presented to a surgeon with mid-thoracic pain and kyphosis.She underwent kyphoplasty at T8.The initial films were felt by the treating physician to be satisfactory, and there was some improvement in pain control.However the patient had another fall, about a week after the kyphoplasty and immediately thereafter began complaining of back pain.Plain radiographs and an MRI done at the time looked satisfactory (Figure 1A and B), but one week later she began to develop numbness and weakness of her lower extremities, soon loosing her ability to walk.A follow-up MRI demonstrated that there had been further collapse at both T8 and T9, with retropulsion of some bone into the spinal canal at T8 (Figure 1C).The patient underwent a posterior decompression

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207