ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2022
The Classification of Axial Deformity in Patients with Basilar Invagination.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo summarize the variation types of the axis in patients with basilar invagination (BI), then propose a classification scheme of the axis deformity.
methodsFrom December 2013 to September 2020, 92 patients (male 42, female 50) who were diagnosed with BI were studied retrospectively. Based on the imaging data of CT, the width and height of the axis pedicle and the sagittal diameter of the lateral mass were measured in each patient. According to the development of axis pedicle and lateral mass, the types of axis variation were summarized, and then the classification scheme of axis deformity was put forward.
resultsAll cases were analyzed and axis deformities were divided into four types. Type I: the axis is basically normal (53 cases, 57.6%). Type II: axis lateral mass is dysplasia (eight cases, 8.7%), which includes two subtypes: type IIA, the axis unilateral lateral mass is dysplasia (three cases); type IIB, the axis bilateral lateral masses are all dysplasia (five cases). Type III: axis pedicle is dysplasia (11 cases, 12%), which is subdivided into two subtypes: type IIIA, the axis unilateral pedicle is dysplasia (six cases); type IIIB, the axis bilateral pedicles are all dysplasia (five cases). Type IV: axis pedicle and lateral mass are all dysplasia (20 cases, 21.7%), this type contains the following four subtypes: type IVA, the unilateral axis pedicle and unilateral lateral mass (contralateral or ipsilateral) are all hypoplasia (four cases); type IVB, the unilateral axis pedicle and bilateral lateral masses are all hypoplasia (five cases); type IVC, the bilateral axis pedicles and unilateral lateral mass are all dysplasia (seven cases); type IVD, the bilateral axis pedicles and bilateral lateral masses are all dysplasia (four cases). The left and right abnormal lateral mass sagittal diameter (Type II) was (7.23 ± 1.39) mm and (5.96 ± 1.37) mm, respectively, the left and right abnormal pedicle width (Type III) was (2.61 ± 1.01) mm and (3.23 ± 0.66) mm, respectively, left and right abnormal pedicle height (Type III) was (5.43 ± 2.19) mm and (4.92 ± 1.76) mm, respectively. Moreover, the classification scheme has good repeatability and credibility.
conclusionsThe classification about axis deformity could provide personalized guidance for axis screw placement in the BI and other upper cervical surgery, and axis screw placement errors would be effectively avoided.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.