Bilateral cervical facet dislocations at two adjacent levels: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical facet dislocations are rare in patients sustaining traumatic subaxial injuries. They occur due to hyperflexion-distraction and can occur unilaterally or bilaterally resulting in significant spinal instability. Bilateral facet dislocations at one level are less common than unilateral dislocations, while bilateral facet dislocations at adjacent spinal levels have only been reported twice in literature. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 31-year-old male presented with bilateral facet dislocations at two adjacent cervical levels (C6/C7 and C7/T1) following a fall from 40 to 50 feet. The patient had undergone a C6/C7 disk arthroplasty a few weeks before the traumatic event. CONCLUSION: Here, we present the unique case of cervical bilateral jumped facets occurring at two adjacent levels (i.e., C6-C7 and C7-T1). Notably, the antecedent cervical C6-C7 arthroplasty likely contributed to the altered load distribution, leading to this unusual instance of bilateral adjacent level facet dislocations. In such cases, surgical reduction and fixation may prove technically challenging warranting, therefore, careful preoperative planning.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".