MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2440257218

Minimally invasive lateral mass plating in the treatment of posterior cervical trauma: surgical technique.

2005· article· en· W2440257218 on OpenAlexaff
Sheeyan Fong, Stephen Duplessis

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLateral massSurgeryRetractorCadaveric spasmDilatorCervical spine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The technique of lateral mass fixation restores the posterior tension band and provides effective stabilization in patients with many types of traumatic injuries. However, postoperative wound pain is not uncommon. The objective of this work is to describe a modified technique of minimally invasive lateral mass plating for cervical spine trauma. METHODS: Patient 1 was a 64-year-old woman who had been in a motor vehicle accident and sustained bilateral C5-C6 facet dislocation with posterior C5-C6 distraction. She was otherwise neurologically intact, and attempts at closed reduction were not successful. Patient 2 was a 16-year-old girl who had also been in a motor vehicle accident but had an incomplete spinal cord injury. She had an unstable burst fracture of C7 with posterior C5-C6 distraction. Both patients underwent anterior cervical fusion followed by staged minimally invasive posterior fusion with good results. A dilator tubular retractor system (METRX) was used to access the bilateral lateral masses through a small midline incision under fluoroscopic guidance. Lateral mass screws were then placed by using a modified Magerl technique, securing two-hole plates on each side onto the lateral masses, performed through the METRX system. We also successfully performed four-level lateral mass plating in a cadaveric cervical spine using a 2-cm skin incision. CONCLUSIONS: We describe successful placement of lateral mass screw and plate constructs with the use of a minimally invasive approach by means of a tubular dilator retractor system. This approach preserves the integrity of the muscles and ligaments that maintain the posterior tension band of the cervical spine.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207