Recurrence Is Associated With Body Mass Index in Patients Undergoing a Single-Level Lumbar Disc Herniation Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess the body mass index (BMI) and other risk factors associated with lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and clinical outcomes, in patients who undergo surgery for single-level LDH. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study, affecting patients that underwent surgery for single-level LDH attending our hospital between July 2009 and January 2016. The mean follow-up period was 3.5 years (1 - 8 years). To maintain adequately sized groups for analysis, level L2-L3 and L3-L4 herniations were grouped as upper disc levels (group A) and level L4-L5 (group B) and L5-S1 (group C) herniations were analyzed individually. Disk herniation was graded on T2-weighted sagittal magnetic resonance images by using a five-point scale. Pain assessment was made using the visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-six (256) patients met study inclusion criteria. There were 138 males (53.9%) with a mean age of 55.3 ± 12.9 years (range, 30 - 77). The association between A, B and C groups was analyzed, based on criteria such as age, sex, BMI, surgical techniques, diabetes, size of herniated disc, preoperative VAS, length of hospital stay, drop foot on admission, smoking, family history and history of injury to the lumbar spine, location of herniated disc (far lateral) and use of steroids. We found a statistically significant factor between groups in BMI (P = 0.006), family history (P = 0.001), location (far lateral) (P = 0.003) and history of injury to the lumbar spine (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: There may be an association between severity of disc degeneration and BMI (overweight and obese adults). Furthermore, spine and neurosurgeons should be aware that BMI might be related to patients' outcome.
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 | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".