[Our experiences with anterior cervical cages and spacer].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Between 2001 and 2005 86 patients were treated for cervical disc herniations and spondylosis at our department. Stabilization was performed with different cervical cages or spacer after discectomy and decompression. The aim of the study was to examine the changes of the patients' pain, quality of life and work ability, fusion rate, the intervertebral disc height, changes of under and upper segments and finally curvature of cervical spine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were followed by the authors, clinical examination, lateral and antero-posterior radiographic examinations were performed. They were asked to fill in a questionnaire, concerning their pre- and postoperative pain, quality of life and work ability. The patients' pain was graded using a 10-point analog scale (VAS) and with a simplified, McGill-Melzak analog scale. The quality of life was measured with a 10-graduated analog scale as well. RESULTS: More than 77% of our patients appeared at follow up examination. The fusion rate was 89.3%, operated spaces were held in 61%. In the upper segment of operated space 7%, and in the under-segment 14% were found increasingly degenerated. The curvature of cervical spine of the patients' were 64.51% lordotic, 27.42% straight and 8.07% kyphotic. On average the patients' pain changed on VAS from 8.179 to 5.015; on McGill-Melzak scale from 3.89 to 2.80; quality of life changed from 8.045 to 5.463. CONCLUSION: By the advantage of using cages, the operative approach has become smaller than before, consequently the operative pain has become less too. In addition operation time and hospital stay were significantly shorter (p < 0.005) than using traditional operation approach. The majority of the patients, pain was decreased, quality of life got better. Despite this fact only 3 patients continue their original work and 5 patients do easier work. The majority of our patients were disabled before the operation, but from that time many of them became disabled, in some cases the grade of disability increased. There can be some reasons for it: the majority of the patients have other diseases for example: lumbar spondylosis and disc herniation, hypertension, diabetes, asthma and depression. There is just a few possibility of work for the disabled people. To conclude, with some of the patients, their disability means "the way out" from unemployment. These facts do not decrease the importance and usefulness of this method. Our results with this type of operation are very similar to the international statistics. This method seems to be applicable and useful.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".