MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945633910 · doi:10.1115/1.4043762

The Evaluation of a Novel Three-Dimensional Printed Expandable Pedicle Screw Sleeve Insert

2019· article· en· W2945633910 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy A. Burkhart, Manjunath Sadashivaiah, Jacob M. Reeves, Paraham Rasounlinejad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Devices · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsVictoria HospitalLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersSmith and NephewLawson Health Research Institute
KeywordsCadaveric spasmMedicineFixation (population genetics)LumbarInsert (composites)SurgeryLumbar vertebraeOrthodonticsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When used in combination with decompression, spinal fusion is a successful procedure for treating patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. While a number of auxiliary devices have been proposed to enhance the fixation of the screw within the pedicle and vertebral body, there is conflicting information regarding the efficacy of their use. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the ability of a novel expandable pedicle screw to improve the fixation of the pedicle screw within the pedicle and vertebral body. A three-dimensional (3D) printed, screw sleeve was designed that expanded within the pedicle and vertebral body when a standard pedicle screw was inserted into it. The left and right pedicle of ten (N = 10) cadaveric lumbar spine specimens (L3–L5) were randomly assigned to be instrumented with either a pedicle screw and the sleeve or a pedicle screw only. Following instrumentation, the screws were exposed to tensile load at 5 mm/min until failure. The failure force, failure deformation, and area under the force–deformation curve were determined and compared between screw conditions. There were no significant differences between the screws and sleeve, and the screw only conditions for the failure force (p = 0.24), failure displacement (p = 0.10), and area under the curve (p = 0.38). While the novel screw sleeve presented here performed as well as a screw without a sleeve, it was better than other screw augmentation devices reported previously. In addition, it is likely that this device would prove useful as an enhancement to revision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical DevicesSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207