MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285076459 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000004356

Rates of Loosening, Failure, and Revision of Iliac Fixation in Adult Deformity Surgery

2022· article· en· W4285076459 on OpenAlexaff
Robert K. Eastlack, Alex Soroceanu, Gregory M. Mundis, Alan H. Daniels, Justin S. Smith, Breton Line, Peter G. Passias, Pierce D. Nunley, David O. Okonkwo, Khoi D. Than, Juan S. Uribe, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Dean Chou, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Shay Bess

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePelvic tiltOswestry Disability IndexSurgeryFixation (population genetics)DeformityPelvisLow back painPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort review of a prospective multicenter database. OBJECTIVE: Identify rates and variations in lumbopelvic fixation failure after adult spinal deformity (ASD) correction. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Traditional iliac (IS) and S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) pelvic fixation methods have unique technical characteristics for their application, and result in varied bio-mechanical and anatomic impact. These differences may lead to variance in lumbopelvic fixation failure types/rates. METHODS: ASD patients undergoing correction with more than five level fusion and pelvic fixation, separated by pelvic fixation type (IS vs. S2AI). Fixation fracture or loosening assessed radiographically (Figure 1). Multivariate logistic regression, accounting for significant confounders, was used to examine differences between the two groups for screw loosening/fracture, rod fracture, and revision surgery. Level of significance set at P< 0.05. RESULTS: Four hundred eighteen of 1422 patients were included (IS = 287, S2AI = 131). The groups had similar age, body mass index (BMI), baseline comorbidities, number of levels fused (P>0.05), baseline health related quality of life measures (HRQLs) (short form survey-36, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Scoliosis Research Society [SRS-22], numeric rating scale [NRS] leg and back, P>0.05) and deformity (pelvic tilt [PT], pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis [PI-LL], and sagittal vertical axis [SVA], P> 0.05). The IS group had more unilateral fixation versus S2AI (12.9% vs. 6%; P = 0.02). The overall lumbopelvic fixation failure rate was 23.74%. Pelvic fixation (13.4%) and S1 screw (2.9%) loosening was more likely with S2AI (odds ratio [OR] 2.63, P = 0.001; OR 6.05, P = 0.022). Pelvic screw (2.3%) and rod fracture (14.1%) rates similar between groups but trended toward less occurrence with S2AI (OR 0.47, P= 0.06). Revision surgery occurred in 22.7%, and in 8.5% for iliac fixation specifically, but with no differences between fixation types (P = 0.55 and P = 0.365). Pelvic fixation failure conferred worse HRQL scores (physical component score [PCS] 36.23 vs. 39.37, P= 0.04; ODI 33.81 vs. 27.93, P = 0.036), and less 2 years improvement (PCS 7.69 vs. 10.46, P = 0.028; SRS 0.83 vs. 1.03, P = 0.019; ODI 12.91 vs. 19.77, P = 0.0016). CONCLUSION: Lumbopelvic fixation failure rates were high following ASD correction, and associated with lesser clinical improvements. S2AI screws were more likely to demonstrate loosening, but less commonly associated with rod fractures at the lumbopelvic region.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207