Sacral dysmorphism and its influence on hardware choice in sacral fractures: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In the setting of sacral fractures, percutaneous screw fixation is a reliable, safe, and minimally invasive method for managing most stable and unstable fractures. However, significant variations in sacral anatomy due to sacral dysmorphism (SDM) could prevent safe implementation. This scoping review aimed to highlight such a detrimental yet under-reported variable in managing sacral fractures. Methods A scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O’Malley framework for scoping studies. A comprehensive literature search of four electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant peer-reviewed studies. Data were extracted from eligible articles to summarize, collate, and create a narrative account of the findings. Results Twenty-one articles were included in our review (18 level III, two level II, and one level I). Studies were categorized into three main groups based on the investigated outcomes: prevalence and determinants of SDM, effect of SDM on the surgical corridor, and efficacy of different intra-operative imaging modalities. The prevalence of SDM ranged from 10 to 85%. The presence of SDM decreased the available surgical corridor at S1, with a compensated increase at S2 and S3. Mixed results regarding accuracy and revision rate were identified between different intra-operative imaging techniques. Conclusion SDM represents consistent yet atypical “safe zone,” sizes, and angles that require careful analysis and technique alterations when placing upper and second sacral segment screws. Considering their limited availability, high cost, and mixed results, navigated imaging systems represent a promising technique that requires more rigorous examination of its efficacy before widespread adoption.
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 | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".