MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402545046 · doi:10.3171/2024.5.spine231223

Necessity of posterior osteotomies for mild flexible cervical deformity correction

2024· article· en· W4402545046 on OpenAlexaff
Robert K. Eastlack, Nikita Lakomkin, Stacie Tran, Michael Jelousi, Alex Soroceanu, Peter Passias, Themistocles S. Protopsaltis, Justin S. Smith, Eric O. Klineberg, Shay Bess, Virginie Lafage, D. Kojo Hamilton, Han Jo Kim, Douglas C. Burton, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Christopher P. Ames, Gregory M. Mundis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKyphosisOsteotomySurgeryDeformityRadiographyChinScoliosisAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Correction of mild flexible cervical deformity (CD) via the posterior approach has been described with and without the use of posterior osteotomies (POs), despite a lack of clarity regarding their necessity or risks. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of POs when correcting mild flexible CD leads to improved clinical or radiographic outcomes, as well as defining the relative risks in utilizing them. METHODS: A prospective multicenter registry of operative CD patients was analyzed. Inclusion criteria were cervical kyphosis > 10°, cervical scoliosis > 10°, cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) > 4 cm, or chin-brow vertical angle > 25°. Mild deformity was defined by a cSVA of 3-5 cm and/or kyphosis < 15°. Flexibility was defined by a C2-7 angular change > 5° on preoperative flexion/extension radiographs. Patients who received a posterior column osteotomy (PCO) (Ames grades 1 and 2) were compared with patients who did not undergo a PCO (noPCO) as well as those who underwent a three-column osteotomy (3CO) (Ames grades 3-6). RESULTS: Ninety-five patients (33 PCO, 49 noPCO, 13 3CO) met the inclusion criteria. Both the number of levels fused (9.2 vs 7.7, p = 0.001) and the estimated blood loss (EBL) (1027 vs 486 mL, p = 0.012) were higher in the PCO cohort. Patients in the noPCO group were more likely to have a cervical apex of kyphosis (71.1%, p = 0.046), while those undergoing 3COs were more likely to have a thoracic apex (58.3%, p = 0.005). Preoperative cSVA (PCO vs noPCO: 45.4 vs 37.9 cm, p = 0.084), T1 slope (32.5° vs 29.6°, p = 0.376), C2-7 lordosis (-8.9° vs -9.2°, p = 0.942), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score (13.4 vs 13.5, p = 0.854) were similar; however, both Neck Disability Index (NDI) (55.6 vs 42, p = 0.002) and numeric rating scale (NRS) neck (7.2 vs 5.8, p = 0.028) scores were higher in the PCO group before surgery. When adjusting for the use of an anterior approach, there was no significant difference in 1-year postoperative cSVA (35.7 and 35.6 cm, respectively; p = 0.969), C2-7 lordosis (13.7° and 10.1°, respectively; p = 0.393), and patient-reported outcome measures (NRS, NDI, and mJOA) between the PCO and noPCO groups. Two-year radiographic outcomes were largely similar, except for C2 slope, which was higher in the PCO group (29.1° vs 18°, p = 0.026). The overall complication rates progressively increased with more complex osteotomy use (noPCO 68.8% vs PCO 71.9% vs 3CO 75%) but did not reach significance (p = 0.063). CONCLUSIONS: The use of POs for mild flexible adult CD may not be necessary to achieve desirable radiographic correction. They are associated with greater EBL and fusion burden. Further studies are needed to fully delineate the risks of adverse events for various types of osteotomies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery SpineSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207