MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800684823 · doi:10.7939/r3qz22t87

Surgical Recovery for Patients with Concomitant Hypertension and Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

2016· article· en· W2800684823 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sanjesh C. Roop

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConcomitantLumbar spinal stenosisSurgeryLumbarStenosisCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS) is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition affecting 8-11% of the United States general population. LSS is the most common reason requiring lumbar spine surgery in adults older than 65 years, with an adjusted rate of 135.5 low back surgeries per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The onset of symptoms typically begins at 50 years of age and often results in localized and radiating leg pain, which limit activities such as walking. Patients with confirmed LSS may be candidates for surgery if conservative treatments have failed to manage symptoms. Patients who received surgery for LSS compared to conservative treatment experience greater improvement in pain relief, function, patient satisfaction and self-report recovery up to 4 years after treatment. The prognostic factors of poor post-operative functional outcome included: depression, cardiovascular comorbidity, disorder influencing walking ability, and scoliosis. High blood pressure (HBP) is reported in 23.2-48.3% of patients with LSS and is associated with lower health status. It is unclear whether HBP affects LSS surgical outcomes. Objective: The primary objective of this cohort study was to evaluate whether HBP was associated with poor recovery following LSS-related surgery. The secondary objectives are (1) to identify the rate of pre-surgical HBP in this community-based LSS cohort, (2) to determine whether the rate or type of post-surgical complications differ between participants with and without HBP, and (3) to describe functional recovery after surgery for LSS. Methods: Patients were identified as study candidates at the time of magnetic resonance imaging in Calgary, Alberta between April 2004 and May 2005. After implementing the study inclusion and exclusion criteria, the cohort comprised 97 participants who received spinal surgery for LSS and were followed over 2 years. Disability status was assessed pre-and post-operatively using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), a disease-specific questionnaire. HBP was identified by self-report, anti-hypertensive medication use, and/or diagnosis of HBP prior to surgery using Alberta Health (AH) data. Participants were interviewed before surgery and within 2 years after surgery. A multiple linear regression model was used to assess HBP as a prognostic factor for post-operative disability status. Potential confounders were included in the model to control for the effect of HBP on post-operative ODI. Results: Of the 97 participants who had back surgery, 46 were surgical participants identified by self-report alone and 25 by AH data alone, and 26 participants who were identified by both sources. The study cohort had a mean age of 71.8 (SD 12.9) years, 52% were women, and the mean number of comorbidities was 2.3 (SD 1.9). The mean ODI score was 59.0 (SD 17.0) pre-operatively and 30.1 (SD 17.7) post-operatively. Forty-nine (50.5%) participants were hypertensive. Regardless of blood pressure status, large gains in function were seen up to 2 years after surgery for LSS (effect size: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.39, 2.06). Of the 51 participants with available surgical data, 20 (39.2%) participants experienced at least one post-surgical complication, and had a median length of hospital stay of 5.0 (IQR 3.0-8.0) days. Comparing participants with and without HBP, baseline group differences were not seen for gender, follow-up time, pre-operative ODI score, or depression. No group differences were seen post-operatively on the ODI comparing the HBP group (mean 30.1, SD 17.7) and the non-HBP group (mean 28.7, SD 17.1, p=0.699). After controlling for age, gender, follow-up time, pre-operative ODI, number of comorbidities and depression, the post-operative ODI score was 1.32 units higher for participants with pre-existing HBP compared to those without HBP (95% CI: -5.64, 8.28, p= 0.747). The standardized coefficient revealed that a 1-point increase in pre-operative ODI score was associated with a 0.38-point increase in ODI post score (95% CI: 0.16, 0.60). Conclusion: Although earlier work suggested that hypertensive patients with LSS have lower scores for overall health-related quality of life than those without HBP, hypertension does not appear to have a deleterious effect on functional recovery after LSS-related surgery. Consistent with the findings from other research, our study cohort experienced large gains in functional recovery and symptom reduction up to 2 years after surgery regardless of HBP. For patients whose conservative management fails to relieve symptoms and are concerned about undergoing LSS-related surgery, our findings show that participants were likely to see improvements in disability status.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207