L3-L4 Hyperlordosis and Decreased Lower Lumbar Lordosis Following Short-Segment L4-L5 Lumbar Fusion Surgery is Associated With L3-L4 Revision Surgery for Adjacent Segment Stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design Retrospective review of prospective cohort. Objectives Reoperation at L3-L4 for adjacent segment disease (ASD) is common after L4-L5 spine fusion. L4-S1 lower lumbar lordosis (LLL) accounts for the majority of global lumbar lordosis (GLL) and is modifiable during surgery. We sought to determine if a reduction in LLL leads to an increase in L3-L4 focal lumbar lordosis (L3-L4 FLL) and resulting risk of ASD at L3-L4. Methods We reviewed the records of a prospective cohort with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent L4-L5 or L4-L5-S1 fusion between 2006 and 2012. Radiographic parameters—GLL, LLL, L3-L4 FLL, upper lumbar lordosis, lordosis distribution index, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence—were extracted from preoperative and postoperative lumbar spine radiographs. Statistical comparisons were made between those who underwent revision for post-fusion adjacent level stenosis at L3-L4 (REVISION) and those who did not (NO REVISION). Results Inclusion criteria were met by 104 patients. The REVISION cohort included 19 individuals. No significant differences in baseline demographics or operative details for the index procedure were found between groups. Postoperatively, when compared to the NO REVISION cohort, the REVISION cohort had a decrease in LLL (-2.6° vs + 1.5°, P = .011) and LDI (-5.1% vs + 1.3%, P = .039), and an increase in L3-L4 FLL (+2.6° vs -.6°, P = .001). Conclusions A reduction in LLL and compensatory increase in L3-L4 FLL after initial lower lumbar fusion surgery resulted in more reoperation at L3-L4 for post-fusion adjacent level spinal stenosis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".