MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410871104 · doi:10.14531/ss2025.1.15-25

Spinopelvic fixation in neurogenic scoliosis: validity of indications

2025· article· en· W4410871104 on OpenAlexaff
Andrey S. Butenko, Ivan P. Pimburskiy, Oleg B. Chelpachenko, Konstantin A. Samokhin, Konstantin V. Zherdev, S.P. Yatsyk, Aleksandr A. Petel’guzov, Pavel A. Zubkov

Bibliographic record

VenueRussian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScoliosisFixation (population genetics)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychologyOrthodonticsPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. Analysis of the results of surgical correction of neuromuscular scoliosis in order to optimize indications for performing spinal and pelvic fixation. Material and Methods. A total of 45 patients aged 10 to 17 years were operated on for neurogenic scoliosis in the period of 2012–2024. Thirty patients without pelvic fixation were divided into two groups: Group I included 15 patients with pelvic tilt of less than 15°, and Group II – 15 patients with pelvic tilt of more than 15°. Group III consisted of 15 patients with pelvic tilt of more than 15° who underwent pelvic fixation. All patients underwent postural radiographs before and after surgery. The treatment results were assessed according to the following criteria: the frontal pelvic tilt angle according to Maloney, the tilt of the L5 vertebra, and the magnitude of scoliotic curve angle according to Cobb. A search for possible relationships between various radiographic parameters was also performed. Results. The average value of pelvic tilt before surgery in Group I was 7.9° ± 5.1°, in Group II – 36.3° ± 14.7°, and in Group III – 37.9° ± 14.2°; after surgery in Group I – 5.9° ± 4.5°, in Group II – 13.6° ± 10.4°, and in Group III – 12.8° ± 4.0°. The average degree of correction in groups was 36.8 ± 32.0 %, 61.2 ± 26.8 % and 62.9 ± 8.9 %, respectively. No significant loss of correction was found during long-term follow-up in all groups. The preoperative Cobb angle of the primary curve was 73.3° ± 20.2° in Group I, 99.9° ± 31.0° in Group II, and 96.7° ± 17.5° in Group III. In the postoperative period, the average Cobb angle was 29.4° ± 9.7° in Group I, 40.2° ± 24.9° in Group II, and 41.6° ± 19.5° in Group III. In Group II, a direct relationship was found between the correction of the primary curve and the correction of pelvic tilt. When assessing the relationship between the L5 inclination and the correction of pelvic tilt in Group II, an inverse relationship was found. No reliable relationship was found between the initial angle of pelvic tilt and the correction of pelvic tilt in Group II. Conclusion. Correction of pronounced pelvic tilt in patients with neuromuscular scoliosis is possible without pelvic fixation and without significant loss of correction, provided that the degree of correction of the primary curve is satisfactory (more than 50 %). A possible parameter determining the need for spinopelvic fixation may be the angle of L5 inclination. Narrowing the indications for inclusion of the pelvis in the fusion zone during surgical correction of neurogenic spinal deformities helps to reduce the frequency of implant-associated complications that are typical for spinopelvic fixation, which in general will lead to a significant increase in the effectiveness of surgical treatment of this category of patients.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika)Same topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207