Posterior Minimally Invasive Transpedicular Approach for Giant Calcified Thoracic Disc Herniation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. OBJECTIVE: Posterior surgery for thoracic disc herniation was associated with increased morbidity and mortality and new minimally invasive approaches have been recommended for soft disc herniation but not for calcified central disc. The objective of this study is to describe a posterolateral microscopic transpedicular approach for central thoracic disc herniation. METHODS: This is a single center retrospective review of all the cases of giant thoracic calcified disc herniation as defined by Hott et al. Presence of myelopathy, percentage of canal compromise, T2 hypersignal, ASIA score, and ambulatory status were recorded. This posterolateral technique using a tubular retractor was thoroughly described. RESULTS: Eight patients were operated upon with a mean follow-up of 16 months. Mean canal compromise was 61%. Mean operative time was 228 minutes and mean operative bleeding was 250 mL. There were no cases of dural tear or neurologic degradation. CONCLUSION: This is the first report of posterior minimally invasive transpedicular approach for giant calcified disc herniation. There were neither cases of neurological deterioration nor increased rate of dural tears. This technique is thus safe and could be recommended for treatment of this rare disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".