Lumbar Discectomy: A National Survey of Neurosurgeons and Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To ascertain neurosurgical practices in the surgical management of one-level lumbar discectomies in the Canadian adult population. METHODS: One page questionnaire faxed to each Neurosurgeon in Canada with questions relating to their practice in the management of this common neurosurgical procedure. All data analyzed using Chi-square statistics. RESULTS: 112 completed surveys were returned hence, giving a 64% response rate with the respondents being predominantly adult neurosurgeons. Of the respondents, 88% perform lumbar discectomy in adults. Only 15% of respondents had a Spine Fellowship. For preoperative imaging, 44% use BOTH CT and MRI whereas 28% use only MRI and 15% use only CT. Prior to initial skin incision, 57% use a localization X-ray image. Preoperative antibiotics are prescribed by 92% of respondents. Majority of respondents (60%) use a pre-incision local anesthetic, whereas only a minority (44%) of respondents employ pre-closure intramuscular injection. With respect to magnification, 70% use microscope, 19% loupes, and 8% neither. Only 12% use minimally invasive tubular retractors. 68% remove "as much disc as possible", while 31% remove "ONLY herniated part". In the case of dural tears, 77% of respondents use fibrin glue (Tisseel). Prior to skin closure, majority of neurosurgeons do NOT use a fat graft (72%), whereas 61% of respondents use epidural steroids. With respect to discharge from the hospital, 58% are discharged on the next day, 18% on the same day, and 23% in two days. Return to work is not recommended until at least six weeks post-op (96%). Most neurosurgeons (93%) would not operate on an individual with a chief complaint of low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey has identified variations in practice patterns amongst Canadian Neurosurgeons with respect to performing one-level lumbar discectomies. This survey is expected to form a basis for the design of a randomized controlled trial in the evaluation of the best management approach for this common neurosurgical procedure.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".