The Effect of Ponte Osteotomies on the Sagittal Shape of Rods and Spine Derotation in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Single-Center, Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adding a Ponte osteotomy (PO) to other surgical techniques for correcting adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) profoundly affects the entire sagittal shape of the rod. POs are an effective procedure for correcting thoracic hypokyphosis in patients with AIS. A retrospective review of 40 patients with AIS was conducted. The sample was divided into 2 groups: PO and non-PO. On a lateral radiograph, the rod end angle (A) was calculated using the intersections of the tangents with the rod end points. The maximal deflection (D) was obtained for each rod. In addition, the rod apex angle (B) was calculated using the intersection of the tangents at 2 points, each 1 cm to 1 side of the rod apex; the distance between the rods at the apex was then measured. Concave rods tended to be straight or even lordotic at the apex in the non-PO group (−0.9° vs. +5.9° in the PO group; P = 0.000). The rod end angle and deflection were significantly lower in the non-PO group (15.2° and 7.1 mm vs. 26.3° and 17.8 mm in the PO group; P = 0.000 and P = 0.000). The convex rods were less kyphotic in the non-PO group; for the non-PO group, the end angle and deflection were 27.6° and 16 mm versus 33.4° and 23.8 mm in the PO group (P = 0.03 and P = 0.000). No significant difference between the groups was observed for the convex rod apex angle (P = 0.8). The rod apices were more superimposed in the PO group (2.9 mm vs. 9.3 mm in the non-PO group; P = 0.000). POs increase the overall sagittal kyphosis and improve the three-dimensional derotation of the apex in patients with AIS.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".