MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388848598 · doi:10.18502/jsp.v3i1.14565

Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion: An Observational Study of Functional and Radiological Outcome

2023· article· en· W4388848598 on OpenAlexaff
Dana Abdel Hafeez, Hosam Abdel Hafeez, Omar A. Al-Mohrej, Mohammed A. Al-Rabiah, Hamzah M Magableh, Ibrahim Bin Ahmed, Nazir Ahmad Khan, Anwar M. Al-Rabiah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Spine Practice (JSP) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOswestry Disability IndexRadiological weaponObservational studyPelvic tiltVisual analogue scaleBody mass indexUnderweightPerioperativePhysical therapyLordosisSurgeryRadiographyOverweightLow back painInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) constitutes a minimally invasive procedure employed to address a spectrum of conditions including degenerative disc disorders, trauma, infections, and deformities. Despite its potential, there exists a scarcity of studies exploring perioperative functional and radiological outcomes. This prospective observational study seeks to address this gap by reporting these outcomes in patients treated at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre (KFSHRC) over a mean follow-up period of 5 years. Methods This case series amassed baseline patient data, encompassing gender, age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification, operated level, and posterior fixation type. Primary outcome measures encompassed the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Index (RMDI), Euro-Qol (EQ)-5D, visual analog scale (VAS), and EQ-5D index scores. Additionally, the study delved into secondary outcomes encompassing radiological parameters such as sagittal balance, lumbar lordosis, sacral slope, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence. Results: The study embraced 51 patients, comprising 9 females and 42 males, with a mean age of 58.6 years and a mean BMI of 29.3. The patients were followed for an average of 5.2 years. Stratification according to ASA classification revealed that 11.8% of patients were classified as ASA I, 52.9% as ASA II, and 35.3% as ASA III. The levels of operation included 60.8% at L4-L5, 33.3% at L3-L4, and 5.9% at L2-L3. The fixation techniques employed encompassed 58.8% bilateral and 41.2% unilateral approaches. The analysis of the primary clinical outcomes unveiled statistically significant enhancements in ODI, RMDI, EQ-5D VAS, and EQ-5D index scores. While lumbar lordosis registered a significant decrease, radiological parameters indicated non-significant shifts in pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and sacral slope. Conclusion The XLIF procedure emerges as an efficacious and minimally invasive avenue for managing degenerative disc disorders. The reported functional and radiological outcomes prove satisfactory. However, while demonstrably effective, the generation of clinical recommendations necessitates the compilation of results from randomized clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.406
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.036 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Spine Practice (JSP)→Same topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology→French-language works237,207→