Percutaneous Pedicle Screws in the Obese: Should the Skin Incision Be More Lateral?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the skin incision for lumbar percutaneous pedicle screws should be more lateral in the obese patient. METHODS: This was a retrospective radiographic analysis of 30 obese and non-obese lumbar spine computed tomography (CT) radiographs comparing the depth of soft tissue along the anatomic axis of the pedicle at L4 and L5. RESULTS: The average distance from the pedicle trajectory on the skin to the lateral border of the pedicle at L4 was 1.4 cm and 3.8 cm in the non-obese and obese groups, respectively. The average distance from the pedicle trajectory on the skin to the lateral border of the pedicle at L5 was 2.1 cm and 4.3 cm in the non-obese and obese groups, respectively; both these differences reached statistical significance, p <0.05. CONCLUSIONS: This radiographic study supports a more lateral start point for percutaneous pedicle screws in obese patients to maintain an anatomic trajectory when inserting percutaneous pedicle screws into the lumbar spine at L4 and L5. If a skin incision is made at only 1 cm lateral to the pedicle in the obese patient, the surgeon often has to place significant traction on the skin edge to lateralize their instrumentation to achieve an appropriate angle of insertion. By making a more lateral skin incision, less manipulation of the skin and soft tissues is needed to maintain an anatomic trajectory of the pedicle screw. Decreasing soft tissue manipulation may decrease wound and instrumentation complications in this at-risk population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".