MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2573238010 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1554331

A Case-Controlled Study Evaluating the Effect of Cone Beam CT (O-Arm) Imaging and Navigation on Pedicle Screw Placement in Adult Spinal Surgery

2015· article· en· W2573238010 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Strelzow, Danny Mendelsohn, Nicolas Dea, Mélissa Nadeau, Marcel F. Dvorak, Charles G. Fisher, John Street

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryDeformitySpondylolisthesisSpinal diseaseSpinal deformityLumbar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Intraoperative CT and navigation systems (NAV) may provide an opportunity to improve precision and accuracy of pedicle screw placement, and in so doing, improve patient outcomes. Our study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of NAV for pedicle screw placement in elective and emergent adult spinal surgery cases. We currently use this technology for surgery in all primary diagnoses of the adult spine including trauma, degenerative, deformity, revision surgery, and tumor. We sought to examine the efficacy and safety of NAV for pedicle screw placement in this broad range of surgical spinal cases. Materials and Methods All patients who underwent pedicle screw fixation with O-arm imaging and StealthStation navigation between January 2008 and December 2012 were analyzed. Patients were matched with historic case controls (non-NAV). Diagnosis, number, timing, and degree of screw malposition were recorded. Any screw with pedicle breach greater than 0 mm was recorded as misplaced. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Quantitative statistical analysis compared screw placement between NAV and non-NAV cases. Results A total of 253 patients met the inclusion criteria by primary diagnosis in the NAV group. Diagnosis categories were not significantly different between groups (trauma 20%, oncology 12%, inflammatory arthropathy 2%, scoliotic deformity 23%, spondylolisthesis 25%, degenerative 13%, and miscellaneous other diagnoses 5%, p = 0.269). Mean number of screws placed was 11.4 in the NAV group and 10.8 in the non-NAV group ( p = 0.299) with misplaced screws in 78 patients (31%) in the NAV group and 105 (42.2%) in the non-NAV group ( p < 0.009). Intraoperative screw revision rates were equivalent between groups (21 in the NAV group and 20 in the non-NAV group, p = 1); however, the number of screws revised during the same admission was significantly different (2 in the NAV group and 9 in the non-NAV group, p < 0.004). Likewise, late postoperative surgical revision rates were significantly different with six patients requiring readmission for screw revision within 1 year in the non-NAV group compared with none in the NAV cohort ( p < 0.008). All categories of primary diagnosis demonstrated reduction ( p < 0.05) in the rate of screw malposition. Screw revision rates for individual diagnoses, however, intraoperatively or early postoperatively were not different between groups with the exception of major adult deformity ( p < 0.002). Thoracic trauma pedicle screws ( p < 0.005) and pedicle screws for deformity ( p < 0.001) were most likely to be malpositioned. Traumatic cervical screws were most likely to require subsequent admission and screw revision. Rates of adverse events were not significantly different between groups. Reoperation for instrumentation failure was significantly different (0 cases in the NAV group and 7 in the non-NAV cohort, p < 0.008). Conclusion Intraoperative 3D imaging with navigation provides an equally safe and more accurate and precise tool for pedicle screw placement than traditional techniques in adult spine surgery. Our data demonstrated a difference in the need for revision screw placement, particularly noted for deformity procedures. Considering the serious consequences of deviant screw position, the use of this technology provides a promising tool to increase patient safety and accuracy for hardware placement.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.347 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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