Retrospective Analysis of Expansile Duraplasty as Surgical Adjunct After Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design Retrospective single-center review. Objectives Assess whether expansile duraplasty was associated with greater motor recovery in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) compared with bony decompression alone. Methods Retrospective chart review was conducted for patients who underwent surgical stabilization and decompression for tSCI at a level-1 trauma center. Changes in motor scores were calculated and compared between patients who had expansile duraplasty and those who did not. Results We studied 96 patients: 11 who underwent expansile duraplasty and 85 who did not. The average pre-operative motor scores for patients with duraplasty was 33.3 ± 22.5 compared to 49.0 ± 29.3 for non-duraplasty ( P = 0.11). At hospital discharge the duraplasty group had an average motor score of 43.1 ± 26.3 with an average score of 52.9 ± 29.4 for the non-duraplasty group ( P = 0.41). The average motor score at the time of inpatient rehabilitation discharge was 55.3 ± 28.6 for duraplasty and 60.1 ± 30.3 for non-duraplasty ( P = 0.37). The change in motor score between baseline and hospital discharge was 9.8 ± 11.8 for duraplasty and 3.9 ± 11.4 for controls ( P = 0.088). There was a higher change in motor score from baseline to inpatient rehabilitation discharge in the duraplasty group (20.3 ± 11.6 vs 11.1 ± 13.5 for controls, P = 0.034) even after adjusting for covariates through inverse probability weighting ( P = 0.017). The duraplasty group did not have significantly more complications. Conclusions Patients who underwent expansile duraplasty at the time of surgical stabilization and decompression for acute tSCI had greater motor improvement between preoperative evaluation and rehabilitation discharge than patients without duraplasty. This technique warrants further study in a multi-center, prospective study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".