Technique for Drilling Instrument Monitoring Electrical Conductivity in Pediatric Cervical Spine Screw Insertion: A Preliminary Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To detail a technique of assisted screw placement in pediatric patients with cervical spine disorders. The use of a recently produced wireless electronic freehand drilling instrument is documented. METHODS: We performed fixation of the cervical spine using different screws in 5 consecutive patients with various cervical spine disorders (posttraumatic, neoplastic or metabolic). Clinical and radiologic features of all cases are reported. The surgical technique is described. RESULTS: Twenty-six cervical screws (lateral mass, pars, and/or laminar) were placed with the use of the same pedicle screw pilot hole preparation device, and by the same surgical team. The average age of this patient group was 13.4 years (range: 6 to 16 y). Average follow-up was 10 months (range: 5 to 14 mo). All screws were inserted after the correct trajectory was identified. No breaches were detected. No screw failure was encountered. However, 8 of 26 (30.8%) screws were, on average, 1.3 mm longer that expected (range: 0.5 to 2.4 mm). None of the patients developed neurologic or vascular complications as a result of screw placement. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical screws placement, although safe, is not free of complications: neurovascular injuries, dural tears, and paraplegia have been described. The use of a wireless electronic handheld pedicle screw pilot hole preparation instrument is a useful tool in the armamentarium of the spinal surgeon dealing with patients with complex spinal deformities or difficult anatomy. Our experience outlines the applicability of this technique at different cervical levels. However, this device is not satisfactory in predicting the length of the screws. The device should be modified or a preoperative computed tomography scan should be used to estimate safe the length of the screws. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV (case series).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".