Quantification of needle angles for lumbar medial branch denervation targeting the posterior half of the superior articular process: an osteological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a common intervention to manage chronic axial low back pain originating from the facet joints. A more parasagittal approach targeting the posterior half of the lateral neck of superior articular process (SAP) was previously proposed. However, specific needle angles to achieve parallel placement at this target site have not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To quantify and compare the needle angles, on posterior and lateral views, to achieve parallel placement of electrodes along the medial branch at the posterior half of the lateral neck of SAP at each lumbar vertebral level (L1-L5) and sacrum. DESIGN: Osteological Study. METHODS: Twelve disarticulated lumbosacral spines (n = 72 individual bones) were used in this study. Needles were placed along the periosteum of the posterior half of the lateral neck of SAP, bilaterally and photographed. Mean needle angles for each vertebral level (L1-L5) and sacrum were quantified, and statistical differences were analyzed. RESULTS: The posterior view provided the degrees of lateral displacement from the parasagittal plane (abduction angle), while the lateral view provided the degrees of declination (cranial-to-caudal angle) of the needle. Mean needle angles at each level varied, ranging from 5.63 ± 5.76° to 14.50 ± 14.24° (abduction angle, posterior view) and 40.17 ± 7.32° to 64.10 ± 9.73° (cranial-to-caudal angle, lateral view). In posterior view, a < 10-degree needle angle interval was most frequently identified (57.0% of needle placements). In lateral view, the 40-50-degree (L1-L2), 50-60-degree (L3-L5), and 60-70-degree (sacrum) needle angle intervals occurred most frequently (54.2%, 50.0%, and 41.7% of needle placements, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Targeting the posterior half of the lateral neck of SAP required <10-degree angulation from parasagittal plane in majority of cases. However, variability of needle angles suggests a standard "one-size-fits-all" approach may not be the optimal technique.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".