MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2576557571 · doi:10.1055/s-0035-1554339

The Efficacy and Accuracy of Cone Beam CT (O-Arm) Navigation (StealthStation) on Screw Position in Adult Scoliosis Surgery

2015· article· en· W2576557571 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Strelzow, Danny Mendelsohn, Nicolas Dea, Charles G. Fisher, Marcel F. Dvorak, John Street

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScoliosisDeformitySpinal deformitySurgerySpinal fusionLumbar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Intraoperative CT and navigation systems may provide an opportunity to improve precision and accuracy of pedicle screw placement, and in so doing, improve patient outcomes. Adult spinal deformity provides unique anatomical challenges potentially amenable to spinal navigation. Our study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of intraoperative cone beam CT navigation for pedicle screw placement in complex spinal deformity cases. Material and Methods We identified all patients treated at our institution with spinal fusion for the primary diagnosis of major adult deformity between January 2008 and December 2012 in whom O-arm and StealthStation navigation was used (NAV). A historic control cohort (non-NAV) was matched based on age, number of levels, curve type and size, and previous fusion. The number and timing (intraoperative, early symptomatic postoperative, late symptomatic postoperative, and incidental) of screw malposition and the need for revision screw placement were recorded. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Any screw with pedicle breach greater than 0 mm was recorded as misplaced. The direction and anatomical level of misplaced screws were also determined. Quantitative statistical analysis compared screw placement between NAV and non-NAV cases. Results A total of 56 patients met the inclusion criteria in both cohorts (112 patients). The mean number of screws placed in each group was not significantly different (17.29 in NAV and 17.71 in non-NAV, p = 0.75). Thirty-eight (34%) patients in the non-NAV group had misplaced screws compared with 21 (19%) in the NAV group ( p = 0.002). The detection of incidental screw malposition was significantly higher in the non-NAV cases (44.6 vs. 23.2%, p < 0.05) and the need for intraoperative screw revision favored navigation ( p < 0.03). Six cervical screws, 16 cervicothoracic, 90 thoracic, and 112 lumbar screws were placed. Early postoperative screw revision rates approached significance ( p < 0.06) favoring navigation. The number of adverse events and length of stay (mean 17 vs. 20.4 days in NAV and non-NAV groups, respectively) were not significantly different. The mean number of postoperative CT scans was significantly fewer in the NAV group (9 vs. 22 in non-NAV group, p = 0.004), while mean OR time was statistically different between groups (492 minutes in the NAV group vs. 408 minutes in the non-NAV, p = 0.002). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that intraoperative CT-guided navigation provides an equally safe and more accurate and precise tool for pedicle screw placement than traditional techniques in adult spinal deformity surgery. There were more intraoperative screws adjusted and fewer postoperative screws revised with NAV. Far fewer patients required postoperative CT examination with the use of NAV.

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)0.008
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.314 · 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