Single-door vs double-door laminoplasty: Retrospective study of clinical and radiological outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laminoplasty is a common surgical procedure in our daily practice as a way for posterior decompression by expanding the spinal canal, for example in patients with cervical myelopathy. There are primarily two mainstays of laminoplasty, that is, single-door (open-door) and double-door (French-door) laminoplasty. Single-door laminoplasty was initially developed by Hirabayashi in which an asymmetrical canal opening was created on one side and hinged on the other. In contrast, the double-door technique was first described by Kurokawa, in which a symmetrical canal opening was created in the midline with hydroxyapatite block spacers in between the opened laminae hinging on two sides. Both techniques have been performed in our center and are options to provide adequate posterior decompression. We would like to evaluate any potential difference in outcomes between the patients receiving the two techniques of laminoplasty in our center, which may provide insight into future operative planning and practice. During 2018–2022, 40 patients who had received either single-door or double-door laminoplasty were recruited for analysis. This is a retrospective review of clinical and radiological outcomes of patients between the groups of patients receiving single-door and double-door laminoplasty in our local center. Our study showed that single-door and double-door laminoplasty were both effective in neural decompression to allow functional improvement by improving both post-operative Pavlov ratio and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores. Single-door group had significantly shorter operative time, and less blood loss compared to double-door group. Given that single-door laminoplasty is an effective technique with shorter operative time and less blood loss, we concluded that it may be considered as a primary technique in laminoplasty in novice surgeons or in emergency setting.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".