Comparison of Radiation Exposure Between Anterior, Lateral, and Posterior Interbody Fusion Techniques and the Influence of Patient and Procedural Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to elucidate the relative influence of multiple factors on radiation usage for anterior, lateral, and posterior based lumbar interbody fusion techniques. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There has been substantial global growth in the performance of lumbar interbody fusions, due to evolution of techniques and approaches and increased attention to sagittal alignment. Utilization of intraoperative imaging guidance has similarly expanded, with a predominance of fluoroscopy and consequent increased radiation exposure. There have been no larger-scale studies examining the role of patient and procedural factors in driving radiation exposure across different interbody techniques. METHODS: We used a clinical registry to review all single-level lumbar interbody fusions performed between January 2016 and October 2020. Operative records were reviewed for the amount of radiation exposure during the procedure. Patient age, biologic sex, body mass index (BMI), operative surgeon, surgical level, surgical time, and fusion technique were recorded. Multivariable adjusted analyses using negative binomial regression were used to account for confounding. RESULTS: We included 134 interbody fusions; 80 performed with a posterior approach (TLIF/PLIF), 43 via an anterior approach (ALIF) with posterior pedicle fixation, and 9 performed with a lateral approach (LLIF/XLIF). Average radiation per case was 136.4 mGy (SE 17.3) for ALIF, 108.6 mGy (16.9) for LLIF/XLIF, and 60.5 mGy (7.4) for TLIF/PLIF. We identified lateral approaches, increased BMI, minimally invasive techniques, and more caudal operative levels as significantly associated with increased radiation exposure. CONCLUSION: We identified several novel drivers of radiation exposure during interbody fusion procedures, including the relative importance of technique and the level at which the fusion is performed. More caudal levels of intervention and lateral based techniques had significantly greater radiation exposure.Level of Evidence: 4.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".