Outcome evaluation of the operative management of lumbar disc herniation causing sciatica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: The authors conducted a study to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and the appropriateness of surgery in patients who have undergone elective lumbar discectomy. METHODS: The study involved a prospective cohort of 82 surgically treated patients with lumbar disc herniation causing lower-extremity radiculopathy. An independent study coordinator recorded demographic data and administered the North American Spine Society (NASS) lumbar spine instrument and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) before treatment, and at 6 months and 1 year after surgery. The HRQOL results were also compared with normative data for the NASS and SF-36. The influence of baseline variables on HRQOL was determined using regression modeling. The InterQual Indicators for Surgery and Procedures (ISP) were used to compare surgeon practice patterns with standardized indications for surgery. The NASS neurogenic symptom (NSS) and pain/disability scores (PDSs) showed very significant improvement at 6 months and little change between 6 months and 1 year. The SF-36 physical function and bodily pain scale scores were associated with the greatest improvement. Interestingly, the 1-year NASS (NSS and PDS) and SF-36 (only PCS) scores remained lower than those of age-matched normative data. Other than preoperative HRQOL scores, the only other variable that inversely influenced HRQOL was the duration of time between symptom onset and surgery. Ninety-five percent of ISP forms were completed, and 97% of the indications recorded by the surgeon matched the criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of standardized outcomes in association with indications for surgery is feasible and may help elucidate the ideal rate for discectomy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".