Risk Factors for Postoperative Coronal Balance in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case-control study. OBJECTIVES: To determine factors influencing the ability to achieve coronal balance following spinal deformity surgery. METHODS: Following institutional ethics approval, the radiographs of 47 patients treated for spinal deformity surgery with long fusions to the pelvis, were retrospectively reviewed. The postoperative measurements included coronal balance, L4 tilt, and L5 tilt, levels fused, apical vertebral translation and maximum Cobb angle. L4 and L5 tilt angles were measured between the superior endplate and the horizontal. Sagittal parameters including thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence, and sagittal vertical axis were recorded. Coronal balance was defined as the distance between the central sacral line and the mid body of C7 being ≤40 mm. Surgical factors, including levels fused, use of iliac fixation with and without connectors, use of S2A1 screws, interbody devices, and osteotomies. Statistical tests were performed to determine factors that contribute to postoperative coronal imbalance. RESULTS: < .01). Both L4 and L5 tilt were statistically different between the groups. Gender and the use of transverse connectors differed between the groups but not statistically. CONCLUSIONS: In adult spinal deformity patients undergoing primary fusions to the pelvis, the ability to level the coronal tilt of L4 and L5 had the greatest impact on the ability to achieve coronal balance in this small series. A larger prospective series can help validate this important finding.
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 | 0.000 | 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".