Hypoglossal Nerve Palsy After Cervical Spine Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the current study is to quantify the incidence of 2 extremely rare complications of cervical spine surgery; hypoglossal and glossopharyngeal nerve palsies. METHODS: A total of 8887 patients who underwent cervical spine surgery from 2005 to 2011 were included in the study from 21 institutions. RESULTS: No glossopharyngeal nerve injuries were reported. One hypoglossal nerve injury was reported after a C3-7 laminectomy (0.01%). This deficit resolved with conservative management. The rate by institution ranged from 0% to 1.28%. Although not directly injured by the surgical procedure, the transient nerve injury might have been related to patient positioning as has been described previously in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoglossal nerve injury during cervical spine surgery is an extremely rare complication. Institutional rates may vary. Care should be taken during posterior cervical surgery to avoid hyperflexion of the neck and endotracheal tube malposition.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".