A Comparison of a Commercially Made Pedicle Stimulating Probe With a Custom-Made Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Clinical trial. Objective. To compare the efficacy of a commercially available stimulating pedicle probe with a custom-made probe for the detection of pedicle wall breaches during screw insertion for the surgical correction of scoliosis. Summary of Background Data. Stimulus triggered electromyography has been used to detect small breaches in the walls of the spinal pedicles during pedicle screw insertion. We routinely use a reusable, custom-made clip that can be attached to the screw, pedicle probe, or other instruments. Commercial systems are available in which the instrument is electrically instrumented to deliver current. Methods. In five patients (173 pairs of tests), we compared the threshold current required to trigger an electromyographic response during testing of the pedicle. Each track or screw was tested with both the custom-made and the commercial probe and the threshold current recorded. Results. Both systems were able to detect pedicle wall breaches using triggered electromyography. The threshold current recorded was not significantly different between the two systems (P > 0.1, paired t test) nor was the difference (0.16 mA) clinically significant. Conclusion. No difference was found between the thresholds detected with either system. There is however, a significant difference in the costs of the two probe systems. A comparison was made between a commercial pedicle probe stimulating device and a custom-made device. Using triggered electromyography to detect pedicle wall breaches in pediatric scoliosis patients, no difference was found between the efficacy of the two probes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".