MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404910134 · doi:10.3171/case24394

Delayed percutaneous intradiscal hydrogel herniation causing neurological injury after minor trauma: illustrative case

2024· article· en· W4404910134 on OpenAlexaff
Sowmya Gopalakrishnan, Rena Far, Catherine Veilleux, Ganesh Swamy, Michael Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Case Lessons · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryFoot dropImplantRadicular painPercutaneousPosterior longitudinal ligamentSpinal canalLumbarAnesthesiaSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous intradiscal hydrogel injection has been used to treat low-back pain (LBP) due to degenerative disc disease with or without mild radicular pain. Complications from these procedures are underreported. In this case lesson, the authors present a rare case of a patient with herniated intradiscal hydrogel following a minor trauma leading to neurological injury. OBSERVATIONS: A 36-year-old female who had been previously treated with L4-5 and L5-S1 intradiscal hydrogel injections for LBP presented with painful, progressive right-sided lower-extremity weakness after experiencing a twisting trauma. Cross-sectional imaging results revealed a herniated hydrogel-based disc implant in the spinal canal. She underwent an urgent L4-5 laminectomy for decompression and removal of the herniated implant. A large annular defect was noted. Postoperatively, she had resolution of her right leg pain but experienced persistent right foot drop requiring an ankle-foot orthosis. LESSONS: Herniated intradiscal hydrogel implants can lead to permanent neurological injury. While the risk factors for hydrogel herniation have not been elucidated, they can be related to pre-existing disruptions to the annulus and/or posterior longitudinal ligament, excess volume of hydrogel injection, and insufficient fixation time. Further research is needed to determine the safety and efficacy of this technology. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE24394.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery Case LessonsSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207