MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2575112995 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000002069

Does Transection of the C2 Nerve Roots During C1 Lateral Mass Screw Placement for Atlantoaxial Fixation Result in a Superior Outcome?

2017· review· en· W2575112995 on OpenAlexaff
Jetan H. Badhiwala, Farshad Nassiri, Christopher D. Witiw, Alireza Mansouri, Saleh A. Almenawer, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLateral massFixation (population genetics)Nerve repairNerve rootMedicineAnatomyOrthodonticsSurgeryPeripheral nerveCervical spine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of transection of the C2 roots during C1 lateral mass screw placement for atlantoaxial fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Transection of the C2 nerve roots has been recommended during atlantoaxial fixation to facilitate C1 lateral mass screw placement and possibly reduce postoperative occipital neuralgia, although this practice remains controversial. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies evaluating the outcomes of C1-2 fixation involving sacrifice of the C2 roots. We calculated transformed proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the outcomes of occipital neuralgia, numbness, bony fusion, and procedural morbidity. For studies comparing C2 transection with nerve sparing surgery, we performed meta-analyses for the outcomes of occipital neuralgia, occipital numbness, blood loss, and operative time. RESULTS: Eight observational studies (N = 393) met eligibility criteria. The rate of postoperative occipital neuralgia among included studies was 0% to 25%; occipital numbness, 6.7% to100%; bony fusion, 96.7% to 100%; and procedural morbidity, 0% to 14.3%. Among comparative studies, C2 transection was associated with a higher rate of occipital numbness [odds ratio (OR) 178.6 (95% CI 26.6 to 1198.4)], lower blood loss [mean difference (MD) -195.3 mL (95% CI -317.7 to -72.8 mL)] and shorter operative times [MD -57.5 mins (95% CI -76.9 to -38.2 mins)] than when the C2 roots were spared. We found no difference in rates of occipital neuralgia [OR 1.44 (95% CI 0.45 to 4.68)]. CONCLUSION: Transection of the C2 nerve roots appears to be a viable, safe option when undertaking placement of C1 lateral mass screws. The procedure is associated with reduced operative duration and blood loss, increased rate of occipital numbness, and no change in the rate of occipital neuralgia. However, given the relatively low quality of evidence, prospective, controlled studies to evaluate this strategy are recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N /A.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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