Current Practices in Lumbar Surgery Perioperative Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to identify current practices and relevant patient-reported and objective outcome measures with regard to rehabilitation protocols directed at the lumbar spine in perioperative procedure settings in order to inform clinical practice and future research. METHODS: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and PubMed using terms relevant to surgical interventions, rehabilitation, and the lumbar spine. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, and 28 investigated postoperative forms of rehabilitation. Patient-reported outcomes typically used were pain and disability, although a wide range of objective measures based on physical capacities were often reported. Rehabilitation programs, for the most part, included some form of strengthening exercises alone or in combination with stabilization exercises, aerobic conditioning, stretching, or education. Despite most studies reporting statistically significant results between intervention groups, considering clinically significant improvement within intervention groups yielded a different portrait. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of objective and subjective outcomes is used to document changes after active rehabilitation. Program components include both active and assisted interventions combined with various means of education and discussion. Multimodal rehabilitation protocols after lumbar surgery may be used to improve patient-reported and objective outcome measures such as pain, disability, and physical function. Further research should be conducted on the effects of preoperative rehabilitation programs.
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".