MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132264350 · doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3411-y

Elderly Patients Have Similar Outcomes Compared to Younger Patients After Minimally Invasive Surgery for Spinal Stenosis

2013· article· en· W2132264350 on OpenAlexaff
Ilyas Aleem, Raja Rampersaud

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOswestry Disability IndexPerioperativeDecompressionSurgeryLumbar spinal stenosisSpinal stenosisConfidence intervalAdverse effectStenosisSpinal fusionHazard ratioLumbarLow back painInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Older patients undergo surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in great numbers, but as a result of substantial diagnostic and surgical heterogeneity, the impact of age on results after surgery is poorly defined. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared groups of patients younger and older than 70 years with relative clinical and surgical homogeneity to determine differences in (1) interval improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively and (2) perioperative adverse events. METHODS: We performed a subgroup analysis of an ongoing prospective observational study. Patients were divided based primarily on age (younger than 70 years [n = 68] and 70 years or older [n = 41]) and secondarily on procedure (minimally invasive decompression alone or decompression and instrumented fusion). With the exception of age and American Society of Anesthesiologists status, the two age groups were similar (p > 0.3) in baseline demographics and ODI. Mean pre- and postoperative ODI were compared between groups at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. Perioperative adverse events were also compared. RESULTS: At all time intervals, both younger and older patients demonstrated (p = 0.05 to < 0.001) improvements in ODI. At the 1-year mark, no differences in ODI were demonstrated between the younger and older patients for decompression only (21 versus 26 [p = 0.29]) or decompression and fusion (19 versus 18 [p = 0.97]). Interval improvement in ODI was not different between younger and older patients at any time point for decompression only (6 weeks: -18 versus -20 [p = 0.66]; 6 months: -21 versus -17 [p = 0.41]; 12 months: -21 versus -15 [p = 0.29]) or decompression and fusion (6 weeks: -11 versus -12 [p = 0.58]; 6 months: -21 versus -22 [p = 0.69]; 12 months: -23 versus -27 [p = 0.97]). There were no differences in perioperative adverse events between groups (p = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: When clinical and surgical heterogeneity is minimized, improvements in terms of disability as measured by the ODI and the frequency of adverse events after surgery in elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis are comparable to those of younger patients. For patients with focal lumbar spinal stenosis, age alone should not dissuade us from considering surgical intervention if otherwise indicated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207