Preoperative Predictors for Good Postoperative Satisfaction and Functional Outcome in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Surgery — A Prospective Observational Study with a Two-Year Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is the most frequent indication for back surgery in adults aged over 65 years, but about one-third of operated patients have less than good/excellent results from the operation. Awareness of outcome predictors and their predictive values may help clinicians in their assessment of the prognosis of patients when considering surgical treatment. Our aim was to study the preoperative predictors in LSS for a good postoperative outcome (satisfaction with surgery and functional improvement) with a two-year follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: LSS patients (n = 102) completed a questionnaire preoperatively and on two-year follow-up. Preoperative patient-related predictors, self-rated health, comorbidities and preoperative treatment were assessed. Satisfaction with the surgical outcome was assessed with a seven-category scale; satisfaction was determined to be good if the patient response was "condition has considerably improved" or "totally cured". Other responses ("condition has slightly improved" or worse) represented poorer satisfaction. A good functional outcome was determined as >30% relative improvement compared to the presurgery score in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS: The predictors for good satisfaction were age < 75 years at operation (OR 4.03; 95% CI 1.35-12.02; p = 0.012) and no previous lumbar operation (OR 3.65; 95% CI 1.13-11.79; p = 0.031). Predictors for a good improvement in the ODI score were regular preoperative analgesic use < 12 months (OR 3.40; 95% CI 1.21-9.53; p = 0.020), non-smoking (OR 3.47; 95% CI 1.09-11.03; p = 0.035) and good (above average) self-rated health (OR 3.27; 95% CI 1.06-10.12; p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: In LSS, regular analgesic treatment preoperatively for 12 months or less, self-rated health above average and non-smoking predicted a good postoperative functional improvement. An age under 75 years and no previous lumbar operation predicted good post-operative satisfaction with the 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".