A meta-analysis of risk factors for cage migration after lumbar fusion surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Cage migration is a rare complication after lumbar fusion surgery, and it is also the cause of lumbar revision surgery. Previous studies have reported that many influencing factors can increase the incidence of cage migration. However, there still remains controversial. The current study was conducted to investigate the risk factors influencing incidence of cage migration. Methods: A systematic database search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials was performed for relevant articles published until July 2022. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two evaluators independently conducted literature screening, data extraction and quality evaluation of the obtained literature. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score was used for quality evaluation, and meta-analysis was performed by STATA 16.0 software. Results: A total of 2126 relevant articles were initially identified, and 7 articles were finally included in this study for data extraction and meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis showed that the bony endplate injury, pear-shaped disc, and screw loosening are significantly correlated with cage migration. The OR values (95%CI) of the three factors were 7.170 (3.015, 17.051), 8.056 (4.050, 16.023), and 12.840 (3.570, 46.177) respectively. Conclusion: Bony endplate injury, pear-shaped disc, and screw loosening are the current risk factors for cage migration postoperatively.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".