MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566047511 · doi:10.1055/s-0036-1582861

Anatomical Safety of the U.S.S. Pedicular Hook-Screw in the Adult Thoracic Spine

2016· article· en· W2566047511 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulrazzaq Tsantrizos, Abdulrazzaq Alobaid, Alexander Andreou, Vincent Arlet, M. N. S. Alsaqabi, Thomas Steffen

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHookMedicineCadaverAnatomyThoracic spineRadiographyImplantThoracic vertebraeSurgeryOrthodonticsLumbar vertebraeDentistryLumbar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Pedicle hooks have been extensively used in spine surgery. One of the major concerns of such instrumentation is the pullout of the implants. Recently, a screw that anchors the pedicle was added to secure the hook, and to improve both pullout strength as well as purchase. An anatomical study was performed on human cadavers to assess the anatomical safety of these implants. From this study, we can conclude that the use of screws to hold the pedicle hooks is generally safe. Further studies should be done to assess this in deformed spines. Materials & Methods: Eleven embalmed human cadavers with a mean age of 76 years (6 male bodies and 5 female bodies) were used for this study. The same staff spine surgeon performed all surgical procedures. The thoracic pedicles were instrumented bilaterally starting from T1 down to T12 with an AO Universal Spine System Pedicular Hook Screw. Abandoning the procedures was permitted whenever the safety of any neural structures was jeopardized or the implant could not be placed correctly. The surgeon's comments were documented. For subsequent analyses after instrumentation, the spines were harvested en-bloc and later dissected into individual vertebrae. Two independent blinded observers did a visual inspection to grade the hook and screw positions. All specimens were then radiographed individually in three dimensions (antero-posterior, medio-lateral & cranio-caudal). Two blinded observers independently evaluated the hook and screw positions following the visual classification system. Only the antero-posterior and lateral radiographs were provided, because only these would be available in a clinical situation. Results Thirty-five implant placements (ten in T11, eighteen in T12 and seven in all other levels) were abandoned prior to the surgical procedure. Six hooks were requested to be repositioned. Four implant placements were abandoned after drilling the screw hole (three screws with a medial deviation, and one screw with a lateral deviation). Of the remaining 225 implants, 29 were lost during harvesting and preparation, leaving 196 implants for further evaluation. One hundred and eighty three implants were considered safe by the surgeon at the end of the surgical procedure, 13 were believed not to be safe and were removed. No screws were found to be disrupting the integrity of the neural structures in the canal or in the foramen. A comparison between the visual and radiological evaluations of both the screw and hook positions was performed. The visual evaluation showed an inter-observer agreement of 85% for the hooks and 78% for the screws. The radiographic evaluation showed an agreement of 75% for the hooks, and of 43% for the screw between observers, a value considerably lower than expected. When comparing each of the two radiological evaluations to the “gold standard,” only 62% to 67% of the hooks and 42% to 48% of the screws had an agreement. Conclusion Overall, the use of U.S.S. pedicle hook-screws is suggested to be safer than either the conventional pedicle hook, which is often malpositioned inside the canal, or the classical pedicle screw, which is too large for the thoracic pedicles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207