The Safety Profile of Intentional or Iatrogenic Sacrifice of the Artery of Adamkiewciz and Its Vicinity’s Spinal Segmental Arteries: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: There is paucity of consensus on whether (1) the artery of Adamkiewicz (AoA) and (2) the number of contiguous segmental spinal arteries (SSAs) that can be safely ligated without causing spinal cord ischemia. The objective of this review is to determine the risk of motor neurological deficits from iatrogenic sacrifice of the (1) AoA and (2) its vicinity’s SSAs. Methods: Systematic review of the spine and vascular surgery was carried out in accordance to PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes in terms of risk of postoperative motor neurological deficit with occlusion of the AoA, bilateral contiguous SSAs, or unilateral contiguous SSAs were analyzed. Results: Ten articles, all retrospective case series, were included. Three studies (total N = 50) demonstrated a postoperative neurological deficit risk of 4.0% when the AoA is occluded. When 1 to 6 pairs of SSAs (without knowledge of AoA location) were ligated, the postoperative neurological deficit risk was 0.6%, as compared with 5.4% when more than 6 bilateral pairs of SSAs were ligated (relative risk [RR] = 0.105, 95% CI 0.013-0.841, P = .0337). For unilateral ligation of SSAs of two to nine levels, the risk of postoperative neurological deficit does not exceed 1.3%. Conclusion: The current best evidence indicates that (1) occlusion of the AoA and (2) occlusion of up to 6 pairs of SSAs is associated with a low risk of postoperative neurological deficit. This limited number of low quality studies restrict the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Ligation of AoA and SSAs should only be undertaken when absolutely required to mitigate the small but devastating risk of paralysis.
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 | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".