P.141 Is occipito-condylar screw a better alternative fixation point for occipitocervical stabilization? 1. Review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Occipitocervical fusion (OCF) using screws and rods offers immediate stability and an high fusion rates. However, multiple cranial fixation points are required in order to compensate for the poor bony purchase. Methods: The aim of this study was to compare the occipital condyle screw with the standard OCF techniques as well as to compare available techniques of the occipital condyle screw insertion. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive “Medline” and “Web of science” database search was performed. Cadaveric, radiographic and case studies were included. Results: The occipital condyle screw in comparison to the occipital plate enables an increased screw length, greater screw pullout strength, lower profile of the hardware and extended grafting surface. Both constructs have similar biomechanical properties (range of motion restriction, stiffness). Proximity of the vertebral artery and hypoglossal canal presents the greatest technical challenge of occipital condyle screw. Four surgical techniques with different entry points, cranial-caudal and medial angulations were described. None of these techniques is superior to the other. Conclusions: Occipital condyle screw is a viable alternative to standard OCF techniques. Challenges exist due to the proximity of the vital anatomical structures. Choice between four available techniques depends on unique patient’s anatomy
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".