MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567080577 · doi:10.1055/s-0036-1582986

Vertebral Artery Injury in Cervical Spine Surgery: Results from AOSpine North America Multicenter Study on 16,582 Patients

2016· article· en· W2567080577 on OpenAlexaff
Abhishek Kannan, Wellington K. Hsu, Alan S. Hilibrand, Ahmad Nassr, Paul M. Arnold, Michael G. Fehlings, Vincent C. Traynelis, Ziya L. Gokaslan, Thomas E. Mroz, Mohamad Bydon, Zachary A. Smith, Eric M. Massicotte, K. Daniel Riew

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVertebral arteryMyelopathyPopulationSurgeryComplicationSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Vertebral artery injury is a rare but serious complication of cervical spine surgery with an overall incidence rate of 1.4% (Rampersaud, 2006). Iatrogenic injury of the vertebral artery can lead to serious complications including lateral medullary (Wallenberg) syndrome, quadriparesis, and mortality. The high rate of vertebral artery anomalies in the general population mandates assessment via advanced imaging modalities in the preoperative period (Schroeder, 2013). The rarity of this complication makes it difficult to set expectations after an injury is encountered. This study utilized a multi-center database to compile outcomes data after vertebral artery injury during a cervical spine procedure. Materials and Methods A multi-center retrospective case series was compiled involving 23 medical institutions. Inclusion criteria included patients who underwent cervical spine surgery between 2005–2011 and who sustained a vertebral artery injury. IRBs were obtained from all institutions and data was sent to a private research organization that collected and collated all of the data. Patients were evaluated on the basis of condition-specific functional status using the Neck Disability Index (NDI), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score, the Nurick scale, and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Results Vertebral artery injuries were identified in a total of 14 of 16,582 total patients screened (8.4 per 10,000). The mean age of patients with vertebral artery injury was 59 years (+/− 10) with a female predominance (78.6%). Diagnoses of affected patients included 7 with myelopathy, 3 with radiculopathy, 1 with cervical instability, and 2 with metastatic disease. The mean duration of operative time for cases was 4.7 hours (+/− 1.8). Vertebral artery injury was also associated with substantial blood loss (770 mL), although only 3 cases required transfusion. Of the 14 cases, 7 occurred with an anterior only approach, 3 cases with posterior only approach, and 4 during circumferential approach. Average length of hospital stay for these patients was 10 days (+/− 8). Notably, 13 of the 14 (92.86%) cases reportedly resolved without residual deficits. Compared with preoperative baseline NDI, Nurick, and SF-36 physical and mental component scores for these patients, there were no observed changes after surgery ( p = 0.20 Ð 0.94). Conclusion Vertebral artery injuries are potentially catastrophic complications that can be sustained from either anterior or posterior cervical spine approaches. This adverse event is associated with an increase in hospital stay and functional disability measured on NDI score. However, the data from this study suggests that with proper steps to ensure hemostasis, patients recover function at a high rate and do not exhibit residual deficits (13 out of 14). Preoperative imaging studies may provide insight into VA anomalies and anatomic variations and are vital to the preoperative assessment. Furthermore, although surgeons should expect increased blood loss once a vertebral artery injury is encountered, patients do not often require a blood transfusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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