Re-operation After Long-Segment Fusions for Adult Spinal Deformity: The Impact of Extending the Construct Below the Lumbar Spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deciding where to end a long-segment fusion for adult spinal deformity (ASD) may be a challenge, particularly in the absence of an abnormality at L5/S1. Some suggest prophylactic extension of the construct to the sacrum and/or ilium (S/I) to protect against distal junctional failure, while others support terminating in the lower lumbar spine to preserve motion. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of re-operation after long-segment fusions for ASD that ends at L4 or L5 (L4/5) vs S/I. METHODS: A multicenter database of patients treated for ASD by circumferential minimally invasive surgery or hybrid surgical technique was screened for individuals with long fusions (≥4 vertebral levels) ending at L4 or below and with at least 2 yr of follow-up. Multivariate regression modeling was used to compare surgical morbidity between the L4/5 and S/I groups, and Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to compare risk of re-operation. RESULTS: There were 45 subjects with fusion to L4/5 and 71 to S/I. Over a 32-mo median follow-up, 41 re-operations were performed; 6 were for distal junctional failure. In those with normal or mild degeneration at L5/S1, fusion to S/I afforded no significant change in re-operative risk (hazard ratio = 1.18 [95% confidence interval: 0.53-2.62], P = .682). In those undergoing circumferential minimally invasive surgery correction, fusion to S/I was associated with significantly greater blood loss (499.6 cc, P < .001) and surgical time (97.5 min, P = .04). CONCLUSION: In the setting of a normal or mildly degenerated L5/S1 disc space, fusion to the sacrum/ilium did not significantly change the risk of requiring a re-operation after a long-segment fusion for ASD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".