The Effect of Implant Density on Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severe adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) can be treated with instrumented fusion, but the number of anchors needed for optimal correction is controversial. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized study that included patients undergoing spinal fusion for single thoracic curves between 45° and 65°, the most common form of operatively treated AIS. Of the 211 patients randomized, 108 were assigned to a high-density screw pattern and 103, to a low-density screw pattern. Surgeons were instructed to use ≥1.8 implants per spinal level fused for patients in the high-implant-density group or ≤1.4 implants per spinal level fused for patients in the low-implant-density group. The primary outcome measure was the percent correction of the coronal curve at the 2-year follow-up. The power analysis for this trial required 174 patients to show equivalence, defined as a 95% confidence interval (CI) within a ±10% correction margin with a probability of 90%. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean percent correction of the coronal curve was equivalent between the high-density and low-density groups at the 2-year follow-up (67.6% versus 65.7%; difference, -1.9% [95% CI: -6.1%, 2.2%]). In the per-protocol cohorts, the mean percent correction of the coronal curve was also equivalent between the 2 groups at the 2-year follow-up (65.0% versus 66.1%; difference, 1.1% [95% CI: -3.0%, 5.2%]). A total of 6 patients in the low-density group and 5 patients in the high-density group required reoperation (p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of spinal fusion for primary thoracic AIS curves between 45° and 65°, the percent coronal curve correction obtained with use of a low-implant-density construct and that obtained with use of a high-implant-density construct were equivalent. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".