MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2800684823 · doi:10.7939/r3qz22t87

Surgical Recovery for Patients with Concomitant Hypertension and Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2016· article· en· W2800684823 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sanjesh C. Roop

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineConcomitantLumbar spinal stenosisSurgeryLumbarStenosisCardiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS) is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition affecting 8-11% of the United States general population. LSS is the most common reason requiring lumbar spine surgery in adults older than 65 years, with an adjusted rate of 135.5 low back surgeries per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The onset of symptoms typically begins at 50 years of age and often results in localized and radiating leg pain, which limit activities such as walking. Patients with confirmed LSS may be candidates for surgery if conservative treatments have failed to manage symptoms. Patients who received surgery for LSS compared to conservative treatment experience greater improvement in pain relief, function, patient satisfaction and self-report recovery up to 4 years after treatment. The prognostic factors of poor post-operative functional outcome included: depression, cardiovascular comorbidity, disorder influencing walking ability, and scoliosis. High blood pressure (HBP) is reported in 23.2-48.3% of patients with LSS and is associated with lower health status. It is unclear whether HBP affects LSS surgical outcomes. Objective: The primary objective of this cohort study was to evaluate whether HBP was associated with poor recovery following LSS-related surgery. The secondary objectives are (1) to identify the rate of pre-surgical HBP in this community-based LSS cohort, (2) to determine whether the rate or type of post-surgical complications differ between participants with and without HBP, and (3) to describe functional recovery after surgery for LSS. Methods: Patients were identified as study candidates at the time of magnetic resonance imaging in Calgary, Alberta between April 2004 and May 2005. After implementing the study inclusion and exclusion criteria, the cohort comprised 97 participants who received spinal surgery for LSS and were followed over 2 years. Disability status was assessed pre-and post-operatively using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), a disease-specific questionnaire. HBP was identified by self-report, anti-hypertensive medication use, and/or diagnosis of HBP prior to surgery using Alberta Health (AH) data. Participants were interviewed before surgery and within 2 years after surgery. A multiple linear regression model was used to assess HBP as a prognostic factor for post-operative disability status. Potential confounders were included in the model to control for the effect of HBP on post-operative ODI. Results: Of the 97 participants who had back surgery, 46 were surgical participants identified by self-report alone and 25 by AH data alone, and 26 participants who were identified by both sources. The study cohort had a mean age of 71.8 (SD 12.9) years, 52% were women, and the mean number of comorbidities was 2.3 (SD 1.9). The mean ODI score was 59.0 (SD 17.0) pre-operatively and 30.1 (SD 17.7) post-operatively. Forty-nine (50.5%) participants were hypertensive. Regardless of blood pressure status, large gains in function were seen up to 2 years after surgery for LSS (effect size: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.39, 2.06). Of the 51 participants with available surgical data, 20 (39.2%) participants experienced at least one post-surgical complication, and had a median length of hospital stay of 5.0 (IQR 3.0-8.0) days. Comparing participants with and without HBP, baseline group differences were not seen for gender, follow-up time, pre-operative ODI score, or depression. No group differences were seen post-operatively on the ODI comparing the HBP group (mean 30.1, SD 17.7) and the non-HBP group (mean 28.7, SD 17.1, p=0.699). After controlling for age, gender, follow-up time, pre-operative ODI, number of comorbidities and depression, the post-operative ODI score was 1.32 units higher for participants with pre-existing HBP compared to those without HBP (95% CI: -5.64, 8.28, p= 0.747). The standardized coefficient revealed that a 1-point increase in pre-operative ODI score was associated with a 0.38-point increase in ODI post score (95% CI: 0.16, 0.60). Conclusion: Although earlier work suggested that hypertensive patients with LSS have lower scores for overall health-related quality of life than those without HBP, hypertension does not appear to have a deleterious effect on functional recovery after LSS-related surgery. Consistent with the findings from other research, our study cohort experienced large gains in functional recovery and symptom reduction up to 2 years after surgery regardless of HBP. For patients whose conservative management fails to relieve symptoms and are concerned about undergoing LSS-related surgery, our findings show that participants were likely to see improvements in disability status.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,013

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,190
Écart entre enseignants0,179 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Alberta LibraryMême sujetSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyTravaux en français237 207