Comparative outcomes and cost-utility after surgical treatment of focal lumbar spinal stenosis compared with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee—part 1: long-term change in health-related quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: It is well accepted that total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) for osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with reliable and sustained improvements in postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Although several studies have demonstrated comparable outcomes with THA/TKA after surgical intervention for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), the sustainability of the outcome after LSS surgery compared with THA/TKA remains uncertain. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study is to assess whether improvements in HRQoL after surgical management of focal lumbar spinal stenosis (FLSS) with or without spondylolisthesis are sustainable over the long term compared with that of THA/TKA for OA. STUDY DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective, longitudinal matched cohort study of prospectively collected outcomes, with a minimum of 5-year follow-up (FU). PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who had primary one- to two-level spinal decompression with or without instrumented fusion for FLSS and THA/TKA for primary OA. OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative change from baseline to last FU in Short-Form 36 physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores among groups was used as the primary outcome measure. METHODS: An age, sex-matched inception cohort of primary one- to two-level spinal decompression with or without instrumented fusion for FLSS (n=99) was compared with a cohort of primary THA (n=99) and TKA (n=99) for OA and followed for a minimum of 5 years. Linear regression was used for the primary analysis. RESULTS: Mean (percent) FUs in months were 80.5+16.04 (79%), 94.6+16.62 (92%), and 80.6+16.84 (85%) for the FLSS, THA, and TKA cohorts, respectively, with a range of 5 to 10 years for all three cohorts. The number of patients who have undergone revision including those lost to FU for the FLSS, THA, and TKA cohorts were n=20 (20.2%, same site [n=7] and adjacent segment [n=13]) requiring 27 operations, n=3 (3%, same site) requiring 5 operations, and n=8 (8.1%, same site) requiring 12 operations, respectively (p<.01). The average time to first revision was 56/65/43 months, respectively. Mean postoperative PCS (p<.0001) and MCS (p<.02) scores improved significantly and were durable for all groups at the last FU. The mean changes from baseline PCS/MCS scores to last FU were 8.5/6.4, 12.3/7.0, and 8.3/4.9 for FLSS, THA, and TKA, respectively. Adjusting for baseline age, sex, body mass index, PCS score, and MCS score, there was a strong trend in favor of greater sustained change in the PCS score of THA over FLSS (p=.07) and TKA (p=.08). No difference was noted for change in PCS score between FLSS and TKA (p=.95). No differences were noted for change in MCS score among all three cohorts (p>.1). CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements in HRQoL after surgical treatment of FLSS with or without spondylolisthesis and hip and knee OA are sustained for a mean of 7 to 8 years, with a minimum of 5-year FU. Despite a higher revision rate, patients undergoing surgery for FLSS can expect a comparable long-term average improvement in HRQoL from baseline compared with their peers undergoing TKA and to a lesser extent THA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".