Two-Level Circumferential Lumbar Fusion Comparing Midline and Paraspinal Posterior Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective randomized and blinded comparative study of 2 patient groups with >5-year follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes and postoperative posterior muscle changes in patients with advanced degenerative disk disease undergoing 2-level circumferential spinal fusion using a posterior midline versus a paraspinal approach. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar spinal fusion is often performed using a circumferential (anterior and posterior) technique. Paraspinal muscle alterations occur during the retraction of the muscles required for posterior instrumentation and fusion bed preparation, which may adversely affect outcomes. METHODS: Patients with advanced 2-level lumbar degenerative disk disease were randomized into 2 groups of 25 each for the approach to the posterior spine for their anterior-posterior fusion. A midline posterior skin incision was universal, but all patients were blinded to the fascial incision and exposure to the posterior spine. All had intertransverse and facet joint fusions with pedicle screw instrumentation. Outcomes (visual analog back and leg pain scale, pain drawing, Oswestry disability index, and self-assessment of procedure success) were assessed at various periods postoperatively. Preoperative and >1-year postoperative magnetic resonance images (MRI), including paraspinal muscles, were read by a radiologist who was blinded to the surgical approach and outcomes. RESULTS: No difference in operative time, blood loss, implant costs, or any other intraoperative parameter existed between the 2 patient groups. Although clinical improvement for all outcome scales was significant for both groups postoperatively, there was no difference between groups. Postoperative MRI T2 relaxation values were significantly increased at the operative levels and distally, but the changes were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Midline and paraspinal approaches result in similar outcomes in 2-level spinal fusions. We were unable to demonstrate that a paraspinal muscle-splitting approach to 2-level fusion was superior to the muscle-stripping midline approach. However, the study has low statistical power.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".