An In-vitro Study on the Effects of Spinal Canal Curvature on Cord Interstitial Pressure during Spinal Cord Distraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design This is an in-vitro study examining the effect of spinal canal curvature on spinal Cord Interstitial Pressure (CIP) during porcine spinal cord distraction. In this study we examined CIP developed in spinal cords during distraction in three conditions: 1) linear cord distraction (stretch) 2) simulated 45 degree scoliotic curve and 3) simulated 90 degree scoliotic curve. Summary of Background Data Spinal cord distraction is a known cause of spinal cord injury (SCI). Several papers published on the pathophysiology of the cord distraction injury suggest that the underlying mechanism of injury is a micro-vascular ischemic event 4 . We have previously described an increase in CIP with spinal cord distraction, 12,18 and have shown that spinal cord distraction can lead to spinal cord injury in live animal experiments 13 . Distraction spinal cord injury is known in scoliosis correction but rare in other spine injuries. With this experiment we wish to determine if simulated spinal curvature may potentiate the spinal cord distraction elevation in CIP noted during our experiments. Objectives To determine if increasing degrees of spinal curvature lead to increasing CIP during in-vitro spinal cord distraction. Methods Ten freshly thawed porcine spinal cords were tested in a saline bath in linear, 45° degree and 90° degree curved surfaces while CIP was monitored using the modified Whitesides technique 27 . Multiple linear regressions were then performed. Results We noted a close correlation between applied tension (T) and CIP. The greatest pressure elevations were noted for the 90° curve mode, intermediate elevations were noted for the 45° curve modes and the smallest pressure elevations were noted for the linear mode of distraction ( p < = 0.05). Conclusion High CIP can be achieved through spinal cord distraction. This CIP is not only directly proportional to tension, but also proportionally increased by the degree of spinal curvature. This may suggest that spinal curvature may tend to increase generated CIP during distraction, and be a potentiating factor for spinal cord injury during scoliosis correction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".