MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000421040 · doi:10.31616/asj.2019.0203

Does Combined Anterior-Posterior Approach Improve Outcomes Compared with Posterioronly Approach in Traumatic Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures?: A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3000421040 on OpenAlexaff
Terence Tan, Tom J. Donohoe, Milly S. Huang, Joost Rutges, Travis Marion, Joseph P. Mathew, Mark Fitzgerald, Jin Tee

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Spine Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBurst fractureRadiological weaponSurgeryCobb angleConfidence intervalRetrospective cohort studyDeformityRadiographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the surgical, radiological, and functional outcomes of posterior-only versus combined anterior-posterior approaches in patients with traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures. The ideal approach (anterior-only, posterior-only, or combined anterior-posterior) for the surgical management of thoracolumbar burst fracture remains controversial, with each approach having its advantages and disadvantages. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed (registration no., CRD42018115120). The authors reviewed comparative studies evaluating posterior-only approach compared with combined anterior-posterior approaches with respect to clinical, surgical, radiographic, and functional outcome measures. Five retrospective cohort studies were included. Postoperative neurological deterioration was not reported in either group. Operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative length of stay were increased among patients in the combined anterior-posterior group in one study and equivalent between groups in another study. No significant difference was observed between the two approaches with regards to long-term postoperative Cobb angle (mean difference, -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -5.2 to 4.8; p =0.936). Moreover, no significant difference in functional patient outcomes was observed in the 36item Short-Form Health Survey, Visual Analog Scale, and return-to-work rates between the two groups. The available evidence does not indicate improved clinical, radiologic (including kyphotic deformity), and functional outcomes in the combined anterior-posterior and posterior-only approaches in the management of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures. Further studies are required to ascertain if a subset of patients will benefit from a combined anterior-posterior approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.010
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Spine JournalSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207