Maverick total disc replacement in a real-world patient population: a prospective, multicentre, observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Controlled trials have shown that total disc replacement (TDR) can provide pain and disability relief to patients with degenerative disc disease; however, whether these outcomes can also be achieved for patients treated in normal surgical practice has not been well documented. METHODS: This prospective, international study observed changes in disability and back pain in 134 patients who were implanted with Maverick TDR within the framework of routine clinical practice and followed for 2 years post-surgery. Primary and secondary outcomes were the differences from baseline to 6 months post-surgery in the means of the Oswestry Disability Index and the change in back pain intensity assessed on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, respectively. Mean patient age at surgery was 43 years, but ranged up to 65 years. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients had an implant at one level, 10 patients at two levels, and one patient at three levels. Statistically significant improvements in mean disability (-25.4) and low back pain intensity (-4.0) scores were observed at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.0001 for both) in the hands of experienced surgeons (>10 TDRs per centre). During the study, 56 patients (42 %) experienced a complication or adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first international observational study to report outcomes of TDR in real-world clinical settings. We showed statistically significant improvements in disability and pain scores at 6 months following Maverick TDR, which were maintained for 2 years alongside an acceptable rate of perioperative complications. The safety and tolerability shown in this observational study were comparable to those from controlled trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".