Accuracy and safety of C2 pedicle or pars screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and accuracy of the C2 pedicle versus C2 pars screws placement and free-hand technique versus navigation for upper cervical fusion patients. METHODS: Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify all papers published up to April 2020 that have evaluated C2 pedicle/pars screws placement accuracy. Two authors individually screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The accuracy rates associated with C2 pedicle/pars were extracted. The pooled accuracy rate estimated was performed by the CMA software. A funnel plot based on accuracy rate estimate was used to evaluate publication bias. RESULTS: From 1123 potentially relevant studies, 142 full-text publications were screened. We analyzed data from 79 studies involving 4431 patients with 6026 C2 pedicle or pars screw placement. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to evaluate the quality of studies included in this review. Overall, funnel plot and Begg's test did not indicate obvious publication bias. The pooled analysis reveals that the accuracy rates were 93.8% for C2 pedicle screw free-hand, 93.7% for pars screw free-hand, 92.2% for navigated C2 pedicle screw, and 86.2% for navigated C2 pars screw (all, P value < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed between the accuracy of placement C2 pedicle versus C2 pars screws with the free-hand technique and the free-hand C2 pedicle group versus the navigated C2 pedicle group (all, P value > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no difference in the safety and accuracy between the free-hand and navigated techniques. Further well-conducted studies with detailed stratification are needed to complement our findings.
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 | 0.031 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".