Quantification of Needle Angles for Traditional Lumbar Medial Branch Radiofrequency Ablation: An Osteological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes following lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have been inconsistent. One possible reason is less-than-optimal placement of the electrode along the medial branch at the lateral neck of superior articular process (SAP). Needle angles that define optimal placement (i.e., parallel to the medial branch) may be helpful for consistent technical performance of RFA. Despite its importance, there is a lack of anatomical studies that quantify RFA needle placement angles. OBJECTIVE: To quantify and compare needle angles to achieve parallel placement along the medial branch as it courses on the middle two-quarters of the lateral neck of the SAP at the L1-L5 vertebrae. DESIGN: Osteological Study. METHODS: Ten lumbar vertebral columns were used in this study. Needles were placed along the periosteum of the middle two-quarters of the lateral neck of SAP. Mean needle angles for L1-L5 were quantified and compared using posterior (n = 100) and lateral (n = 100) photographs. RESULTS: Mean needle angles varied ranging from 29.29 ± 17.82° to 47.22 ± 16.27° lateral to the parasagittal plane (posterior view) and 33.53 ± 10.23° to 49.19 ± 10.69° caudal to the superior vertebral endplate (lateral view). Significant differences in mean angles were found between: L1/L3 (P = .008), L1/L4 (P = .003), and L1/L5 (P = .040) in the posterior view and L1/L3 (P = .042), L1/L4 (P < .001), L1/L5 (P < .001), L2/L4 (P = .004), and L2/L5 (P = .004) in lateral view. CONCLUSIONS: Variability of needle angles suggest a standard "one-size-fits-all" approach may not be the optimal technique. Future research is necessary to determine optimal patient-specific needle angles from a more detailed and granular analysis of fluoroscopic landmarks.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".