Lumbar spinal stenosis patients are satisfied with short-term results of surgery – younger age, symptom severity, disability and depression decrease satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients' (n = 98) satisfaction with surgery outcome and associated factors at three months post-operative stage. METHOD: LSS-related physical functioning and pain were assessed with Oswestry disability index, Stucki questionnaire, Visual Analogue Scale and pain drawings. Depression was assessed with 21-item Beck Depression Inventory. Psychological well-being was assessed with the Life satisfaction scale, Toronto Alexithymia Scale and Sense of Coherence Scale. All questionnaires were administered before and 3 months after surgical treatment of LSS. Satisfaction with surgery outcome was assessed with a separate scale. RESULTS: Considerable improvement was evident in all the functional and pain-related variables. Two-thirds (66%) of the patients were at least clearly satisfied with the surgery outcome. Younger age, symptom severity, disability and depression were independently associated with dissatisfaction with surgery outcome. CONCLUSION: The lack of physical, functional and emotional well-being is associated with the patients' dissatisfaction with the surgery outcome. Patient satisfaction is a valid outcome to be measured in LSS patients undergoing surgery. It is recommended that patients should be provided with realistic pre-operative patient information and that depression be assessed pre-operatively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".