P.203 Clinical outcomes of endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy: A single center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Odontoidectomy for basilar invagination and craniovertebral junction pathology has traditionally been performed using a transoral route. However, the endoscopic endonasal approach to the anterior craniovertebral junction may offer safer and more effective access when compared to transoral approaches. Methods: This study is a retrospective chart review of all adult patients who underwent an endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy at a single tertiary care center between January 2011 and May 2019. Results: Seventeen patients were included in the study. The median admission age was 67 years (range: 33-84 years) and 65% of the patients were female. One patient (1/17, 6%) had vertebral artery injury which was coiled with no neurological deficits, and 4 patients (4/17, 24%) had intraoperative CSF leaks with no postoperative leak. Fourteen patients (14/17, 82%) were extubated by POD 1. Three patients (3/17, 18%) developed postoperative sinus infections and required antibiotics. Eight patients (8/17, 47%) developed transient postoperative dysphagia. One patient (1/17, 6%) had postoperative epistaxis and one patient (1/17, 6%) had postoperative lower cranial nerve symptoms. The median length of hospital stay was 13 days (range: 2-44 days). Conclusions: Endoscopic endonasal odontoidectomy is a feasible and well-tolerated procedure for anterior decompression of craniovertebral junction, associated with satisfactory patient outcomes and low morbidity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".