Esophageal Perforation Following Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery: Case Report and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective case series and review of the literature. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of esophageal perforations following anterior cervical spine surgery. METHODS: As part of an AOSpine series on rare complications, a retrospective cohort study was conducted among 21 high-volume surgical centers to identify esophageal perforations following anterior cervical spine surgery. Staff at each center abstracted data from patients' charts and created case report forms for each event identified. Case report forms were then sent to the AOSpine North America Clinical Research Network Methodological Core for data processing and analysis. RESULTS: The records of 9591 patients who underwent anterior cervical spine surgery were reviewed. Two (0.02%) were found to have esophageal perforations following anterior cervical spine surgery. Both cases were detected and treated in the acute postoperative period. One patient was successfully treated with primary repair and debridement. One patient underwent multiple debridement attempts and expired. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal perforation following anterior cervical spine surgery is a relatively rare occurrence. Prompt recognition and treatment of these injuries is critical to minimizing morbidity and mortality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".