Accuracy Analysis of Iliac Screw Using Freehand Technique in Spinal Surgery : Relation between Screw Breach and Revision Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the accuracy of iliac screws using freehand technique performed by the same surgeon. We also analyzed how the breach of iliac screws was related to the clinical symptoms resulting in revision surgery. METHODS: From January 2009 to November 2015, 100 patients (193 iliac screws) were analyzed using postoperative computed tomography scans. The breaches were classified based on the superior, inferior, lateral, and medial iliac wall violation by the screw. According to the length of screw extrusion, the classification grades were as follows : grade 1, screw extrusion <1 cm; grade II, 1 cm ≤ screw extrusion <2 cm; grade III, 2 cm ≤ screw extrusion <3 cm; and grade IV, 3 cm ≤ screw extrusion. We also reviewed the revision surgery associated with iliac screw misplacement. RESULTS: Of the 193 inserted screws, 169 were correctly located and 24 were misplaced screws. There were eight grade I, six grade II, six grade III, and four grade IV screw breaches, and 11, 8, 2, and 3 screws violated the medial, lateral, superior, and inferior walls, respectively. Four revision surgeries were performed for the grade III or IV iliac screw breaches in the lateral or inferior direction with respect to its related symptoms. CONCLUSION: In iliac screw placement, 12.4% breaches developed. Although most breaches were not problematic, symptomatic violations (2.1%) could result in revision surgery. Notably, the surgeon should keep in mind that lateral or inferior wall breaches longer than 2 cm can be risky and should be avoided.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".