Factors Associated With Clinical Outcomes After Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Porous Nitinol Implant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the association of demographic and perioperative factors with clinical outcomes of lumbar interbody fusion with a porous nitinol (TiNi) implant for degenerative disc disease. METHODS: Forty-one patients with degenerative lumbar disease were prospectively followed for a mean of 4.8 years. All patients were instrumented with porous TiNi interbody fusion devices. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and return to work were used to assess clinical outcomes. Factors including age, body mass index, smoking status, insurance status, number of comorbidities, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss, number of levels fused, time since surgery, and preoperative ODI score were assessed. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to look for demographic and perioperative factors associated with clinical outcome. RESULTS: = .019, respectively). Smoking status, salary insurance status, age, body mass index, number of comorbidities, number of levels fused, time since surgery, and preoperative ODI score were not significantly associated with outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Porous nitinol permitted fusion rates similar to those reported in the literature for alternative fusion cages. Poor functional outcome of patients was strongly associated with intraoperative blood loss and duration of surgery. We believe that estimated blood loss should be carefully evaluated in studies of postoperative outcome, as it may affect midterm outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".