Relationship of Duration of Wait for Surgery and Postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes for Hallux Valgus Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND:: Little is known about the effect of delayed access to bunion correction (hallux valgus) surgery on patient-reported outcomes. The objective of this study was to measure the association between preoperative wait time for bunion correction surgery and postoperative patient-reported outcomes. METHODS:: This study prospectively recruited patients to complete preoperative patient-reported outcomes measuring depression, pain, and foot and ankle health, including the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); the pain intensity (P), interference with enjoyment (E) of life and general (G) instrument (ie, PEG); and the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), a condition-specific instrument. Patients complete the same patient-reported outcomes 6 months postoperatively. Regression models measured patient-reported outcomes as a function of wait time, adjusting for baseline health, age category, sex, comorbidities, and socioeconomic status. This study included 87 participants, a response rate of 53% among eligible patients. RESULTS:: Longer waits for bunion correction surgery, adjusting for other factors, were associated with smaller gains in health in 4 of the 5 domains of the FAOS. There was no relationship between postoperative depression and pain scores with duration of wait time, adjusting for patient characteristics. CONCLUSION:: At the 6-month postoperative time point, prolonged preoperative wait times were detrimental to foot and ankle outcomes in 4 of the 5 domains of the foot and ankle-specific PRO. Policies for expediting access for symptomatic hallux valgus are warranted to mitigate poorer postoperative outcomes. Further study is required to understand if failure to improve is a permanent finding in the postoperative period. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Level II, prospective comparative study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".