Anterolateral Cervical Kyphoplasty for Metastatic Cervical Spine Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical and radiological efficacy of anterolateral kyphoplasty for cervical spinal metastasis. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Although the spine is the third most common site of tumor metastasis, the cervical spine is the least commonly affected (incidence, 10%-15%). Surgical decompression is highly challenging because of the proximity of neural and vascular elements. Kyphoplasty for cervical spine metastasis has been described in small case reports with promising results. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a prospective collected single-center spine metastasis database was done for cervical kyphoplasty cases. Data pertaining to age, sex, primary tumor diagnosis, modified Tokuhashi score, Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), preoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, and analgesic medication were extracted. Postoperative data included VAS score at postoperative day 1, duration of hospitalization, self-reported functional outcome, and VAS score at the last follow-up. RESULTS: Eleven patients (mean age, 62.5 years) with cervical spine metastases were treated with 15-level kyphoplasty. Mean Tokuhashi score was 8.1, and mean SINS was 7.85. Mean preoperative pain score was 7.1, and 82% of patients used opioid analgesics. Mean total bleeding volume was 100 mL. Mean complication-free length of stay was 2.6 days with a decrease in postoperative pain (VAS score=2.8, p <0.05). There was a 56% decrease in opioid dosage and the number of consumed analgesics (1.09, p =0.004). Eightytwo percent of the patients reported excellent improvement at the last follow-up self-assessment. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this case series represents the largest series of vertebral augmentation using balloon kyphoplasty for cervical spinal metastasis. This technique is associated with low postoperative complications as well as significant decrease in pain, use of opioids, and length of hospital stay. The main indications for vertebral kyphoplasty are lytic lesions of the cervical spine, painful lesions refractory to medical treatment, SINS score of 6-10, and absence of posterior wall defect.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".