Case Series of First Trolley Gliding Vehicle Device used in Patients with Early Onset Scoliosis as a Growth Guiding System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Current surgical treatment modalities available for the treatment of early onset scoliosis, either spine based Duel Growing Rods, or rib based VEPTR construct, require repetitive lengthening surgeries with no apical control of the deformity. The overall results of these techniques have shown to provide some benefits. However they remain with a high rate of complications, in part related to frequent repetitive surgeries. A new gliding spinal anchor know as Trolley Gliding Vehicle (TGV) and a new surgical technique has been developed with the hope to address some of these short coming. Here we present this innovative device and the new surgical technique. Material and Methods Six patients with Early Onset Scoliosis were treated with TGV by a single surgeon at three institutions. The implant was made available via a special access program from Health Canada, as the implant is only available in Europe (CE mark). Patient perioperative data was collected for all patients. Any intra-operative or immediate post-operative complications were also documented. Results The average age of the patients was 8.3 years of age. The pre-operative diagnoses included congenital myopathy, congenital idiopathic scoliosis, Padder Willi syndrome, cerebral palsy, “cri du chat” syndrome, and idiopathic early onset scoliosis. The average age of the patients at time of surgery was 8.3 years of age (5–14 years old). The average follow-up was 6 months. The average pre-operative Cobb angle was 71.33 degrees with average correction at last follow up equal to 29.66 degrees. No intra-operative complications were noted. One patient required one revision surgery consisting of adding TGV for fluctuating bursa over distal fixation due to excessive motion. Conclusion We present early results of a new spinal gliding implant in six patients. The Trolley Gliding Vehicle showed good correction of spinal deformity with low short-term complications rate. Results cannot provide any long term conclusion. A prospective clinical study has been started in Europe and will be undertake in Canada once Health Canada approves the implant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".