Implant-Related Complications Using Uniaxial Implants In Pediatric Spinal Deformity Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The successful surgical treatment of paediatric spinal deformity relies on robust anchors to achieve correction. Uniaxial pedicle screws are designed with articulation between the screw head and screw shaft, thus reducing the risk of anchor failure whilst permitting corrective manoeuvres. The purpose of this study was to describe the incidence, nature, and chronology of implant-related complications in pediatric spinal deformity treated with uniaxial pedicle screws. METHODS: A retrospective radiographic analysis was carried out on paediatric patients treated for spinal deformity with more than two years of follow-up. Each was treated with posterior instrumented spinal fusion (PISF) using a uniaxial pedicle screw system by a single surgeon at a single institution. Surgical records, post-operative radiographs, and follow-up documentation were scrutinised for details of the implants used, implant failure, and revision procedures. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-nine eligible patients with a mean follow-up of 3.3 years were identified. The mean anchor density was 1.7. Seven implant complications were observed. Early complications (<12 months) occurred in four cases and late (>12 months) in three cases. None of the early complications were associated with non-union. Two early and two late complications required revision surgery to manage implant failure and non-union. Patients who underwent fusion across the lumbosacral junction showed a higher than expected rate of implant-related complication (P=0.02). CONCLUSION: This study shows that there is a rate of implant-related failure of 1.8% after PISF with uniaxial implants in pediatric spinal deformities. There is a distinction between early and late implant-related complications, with early failure being due to loss of construct integrity, whereas late failure is due to pseudarthrosis and construct fatigue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".