Historical Perspectives on the Evolution of Spino-Pelvic Fixation and its Implications on Clinical Care A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Broad narrative review. OBJECTIVES: To review and summarize the evolution of spinopelvic fixation (SPF) and its implications on clinical care. METHODS: A thorough review of peer-reviewed literature was performed on the historical evolution of sacropelvic fixation techniques and their respective advantages and disadvantages. RESULTS: The sacropelvic junction has been a long-standing challenge due to a combination of anatomic idiosyncrasies and very high biomechanical forces. While first approaches of fusion were determinated by many material and surgical technique-related limitations, the modern idea of stabilization of the lumbosacral junction was largely initiated by the inclusion of the ilium into lumbosacral fusion. While there is a wide spectrum of indications for SPF the chosen technique remains is defined by the individual pathology and surgeons' preference. CONCLUSION: By a constant evolution of both instrumentation hardware and surgical technique better fusion rates paired with improved clinical results could be achieved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".