Graft Subsidence and Revision Rates Following Anterior Cervical Corpectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the subsidence and revision rates associated with different interbody cages following anterior cervical corpectomy and reconstruction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Different interbody cages are currently used for surgical reconstruction of the anterior and middle columns of the spine following anterior cervical corpectomy. However, subsidence and delayed union/nonunion associated with allograft and cage reconstruction are common complications, which may require revision with instrumentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the cases of 75 patients who underwent cervical corpectomy and compared the radiographic graft subsidence and revision rates for fibula allograft, titanium mesh cage, titanium expandable cage, and carbon fiber cages. Subsidence was calculated by comparing the immediate postoperative lateral x-ray films to those obtained during follow-up visits. RESULTS: The average graft subsidence was 3 mm and revision rate was 25% for fibula allograft versus 2.9 mm and 11.1%, 2.9 mm and 18.8% for titanium mesh cages and titanium expandable cages, respectively. The average graft subsidence for carbon fiber cages was 0.7 mm with no revision surgery in this subset. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that subsidence and revision rates following anterior corpectomy and interbody fusion could be minimized with the use of a carbon fiber cage.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".