Abducens Nerve (VI) Injury Caused by Halo-Femoral Traction: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stretch and traction on cranial nerves during surgery may cause localized ischemia or change of position of the cranial nerve leading to subsequent dysfunction. Cranial nerve palsies (VI, IX, X and XII) are the commonly affected nerves. Here we report a cranial nerve VI palsy from a halo-femoral suspension following a posterior spinal fusion. We present an 11-year-old girl with idiopathic scoliosis who was admitted for surgical correction. She had no neurological problems preoperatively. The initial video-assisted thoracoscopic anterior release and cranial bifemoral traction were uneventful. Postoperatively, ten-pound weights were added at the head and another ten were added for counter-traction. Weights were added daily in 5-pound increments. Postoperative day 2, the patient complained of “double vision” which resolved upon decreasing the traction weight only by 5 pounds. She underwent an uneventful posterior spinal fusion one week later with a total intravenous anesthesia technique; motor evoked potentials were adequate throughout the procedure. One day later, she again developed left sixth cranial nerve palsy with inability to gaze laterally. There were no other neurological deficits, headaches or even double vision. Neurology and ophthalmology consultations excluded hypoxia/hypoperfusion as possible etiologies. The femoral pins and occipital frame were removed on day 3 in order to obtain imaging and also to remove a potential source of infection. The left lateral rectus palsy was noted to improve that same day. Radiological imaging results were ultimately normal. There is a need for frequent neurological examinations in patients in halo-tractions and prompt removal of the instrument at the first sign of eye problems. J Neurol Res. 2011;1(3):113-114 doi: https://doi.org/10.4021/jnr39e
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".