Improving postoperative patient reported benefits and satisfaction following spinal fusion with a single preoperative education session
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patient expectations have been demonstrated to influence recovery following spine surgery. Addressing patient expectations specifically in regards to pain and postsurgical healing is an important factor in improving recovery patterns. Presurgical education can potentially help manage patient expectations. PURPOSE: The primary objective was to determine if participation in a single preoperative multidisciplinary educational session would result in reduced patient dissatisfaction with surgical expectations. A secondary objective was to determine if participation resulted in improvements in postsurgical pain, disability, and reductions in emergency room visits following surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study utilizing data from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) registry and hospital electronic medical records. PATIENT SAMPLE: Participants were patients receiving elective spinal fusion for 2-5 levels (N=206). Cohort 1 included patients who participated in preoperative multidisciplinary education (n=103). Cohort 2 included patients who opted out of the educational session (n=103). OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes measured included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), NRS scales for back and leg pain (NRS-B/NRS-L), CSORN questions pertaining to patient satisfaction with surgery and whether or not the surgery met expectations. Electronic chart review quantified emergency room visits following surgery. METHODS: Spinal fusion patients are encouraged to attend a one time, two-hour education session 3-6 weeks prior to their surgery. The education session includes interactive discussions with nursing, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy staff concentrating on what patients should expect, how to best prepare for surgery and proper care postsurgery. A one-way ANOVA was conducted for continuous variables of interest (age, number of levels operated on, ASA score, and number of visits to the emergency room following surgery). Chi-squared analysis was conducted for categorical variables of interest (pathology, gender, patient satisfaction, and patient expectations). A two (Cohort; education: no education) × 2 (Time; baseline: follow-up) repeated measure ANOVA was conducted for NRS-B, NRS-L, and ODI. Significance was set at p<.05. RESULTS: Patients (n=103) who took part in the presurgical education sessions were significantly more satisfied with their surgery compared to the control cohort (p=.014). Patients (n=103) who did not participate in the education session failed to have their expectations met in terms of improvement in daily activities (p=.03), improvement in walking capacity (p=.03) and their expectation of back pain reduction (p=.001). There was a statistically significant effect of participation in the educational session reducing postoperative back pain (p=0.03), although this improvement did not reach a minimally clinically important difference. Number of visits to the emergency room in the 12 weeks following spine surgery was significantly lower (p=.04) for patients in the education cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced emergency room utilization, improved patient satisfaction, achievement of expected improvements and alleviation of back pain were documented with greater success following participation in a single 2-hour educational session prior to surgery. A single education session is a viable tool for improving patient outcomes due to its low administrative burden.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».