Patient satisfaction with outpatient lumbar microsurgical discectomy: a qualitative study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Lumbar microsurgical discectomy was traditionally done as an inpatient procedure, but over the last decade, there has been an ever-expanding shift toward outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy (OLM). We have been performing OLM since 1997 (MB) and 2002 (EMM), but no study of patient satisfaction has been carried out to date. the objective of our study was to investigate patient satisfaction with the experience. METHODS: Between September 2004 and March 2005, we carried out a qualitative case study at Toronto Western Hospital, involving interviews with 28 patients who had recently undergone OLM. The protocol was approved by the institutional Research Ethics Board, and informed consent was obtained from each participant. Interviews were transcribed and stored anonymously and subjected to modified thematic analysis by 5 reviewers. RESULTS: Analysis of the interviews yielded several overarching themes: 1) patients are surprised that back surgery can be done on an outpatient basis; 2) the amount and quality of information they receive is satisfactory; 3) the overall experience is positive; 4) trust in one's surgeon is important; and 5) some patients have significant back pain in the early postoperative period. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients appreciate the need for the health care system to save money where possible so that it can be spent in other, more resource-intensive areas. Outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy satisfies this goal while retaining high patient satisfaction rates. Qualitative research can yield substantial insight, which will improve the experience for future patients. Qualitative research is rare in the surgical literature and can answer questions quantitative research methods cannot.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".