Quality of life in chronic low back pain patients treated with instrumented fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to examine pain and quality of life in a group of preoperative chronic low back pain patients (n = 25) and a group of postoperative chronic low back pain patients (n = 101) treated with instrumented fusion 1-8 years ago. BACKGROUND: Reduced quality of life is common in chronic low back pain patients and the aim of treatment is to improve quality of life. DESIGN: In the present study, a comparative survey design was used. METHODS: The McGill Pain Questionnaire and the SF-36 Health Survey were used to examine pain and quality of life. RESULTS: The pre- and postoperative groups did not differ with regard to age, gender, education, other chronic conditions or previous spinal surgery. Compared with the preoperative group, the postoperative group reported significantly lower total, sensory, affective and evaluative pain, used less pain medication (p < 0.05) and reported better scores in all SF-36 components (p < 0.05), except for general health. The effect size was > or =0.8 for all pain components and > or =0.4 for all SF-36 components, except for general health (effect size = 0.009). With regard to long-term follow-up, patients who underwent surgery 5-8 years ago reported better physical role functioning (p < 0.05) compared with those who underwent surgery 1-2 years ago. CONCLUSION: Results showed that the postoperative group reported significantly less pain and better physical and mental health compared with the preoperative group. However, despite surgery, the postoperative group reported suffering from pain and reduced quality of life. Relevance to clinical practice. Psychosocial interventions focusing on psychosocial consequences of pain are needed to modify the pain experience and increase the quality of life in patients who have undergone this kind of surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".