The Intradiscal Osteotomy: An Alternative Technique for Adult Spinal Deformity Correction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult spinal deformity (ASD) correction has changed considerably since the initial description of a Smith-Petersen osteotomy (SPO), including pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSO), and more minimally invasive techniques. Here, we introduce and describe the intradiscal osteotomy (IDO), a novel variation of Schwab type 3 and 4 osteotomies allowing pedicle and vertebral body preservation, and its advantages and disadvantages. After pedicle screw placement, the posterior elements (except pedicles) are removed from the appropriate vertebrae, including the superior/inferior articulating processes, laminae, and spinous processes. An osteotome is used to remove the posterior aspect of the superior and inferior endplate, followed by the entire disc, creating more working room for eventual cage insertion. After the careful release of the annulus, an intradiscal distractor is used to distract the endplates and allow interbody cage insertion as anteriorly as possible. Pedicle and vertebral body preservation allow increased fixation and endplate cage support, which lengthens the anterior column and acts as a fulcrum when compressing posteriorly to restore lordosis. By allowing for anterior and posterior column release, the IDO technique provides a feasible, all-posterior approach for the correction of fixed or flexible kyphoscoliotic curves. This technical report introduces and describes the IDO as an alternative method for thoracic and/or lumbar ASD correction. More studies are required to fully elucidate its outcome vs. complication profile compared to other deformity correction techniques.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".