Effect of Serious Adverse Events on Health-related Quality of Life Measures Following Surgery for Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of prospective multicenter cohort. OBJECTIVE: To assess effect of serious adverse events (SAEs) on 2- and 4-year patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in patients surgically treated for adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Operative treatment for ASLS can improve health-related quality of life, but has high rates of SAEs. How these SAEs effect health-related quality of life remain unclear. METHODS: The ASLS study assessed operative versus nonoperative ASLS treatment, with randomized and observational arms. Patients were 40- to 80-years-old with ASLS, defined as lumbar coronal Cobb ≥30° and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) ≥20 or Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) ≤4.0 in pain, function, and/or self-image domains. SRS-22 subscore and ODI were compared between operative patients with and without a related SAE and nonoperative patients using an as-treated analysis combining randomized and observational cohorts. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients were enrolled, and 2- and 4-year follow-up rates were 90% and 81%, respectively, although at the time of data extraction not all patients were eligible for 4-year follow-up. A total of 97 SAEs were reported among 173 operatively treated patients. The most common were implant failure/pseudarthrosis (n = 25), proximal junctional kyphosis/failure (n = 10), and minor motor deficit (n = 8). At 2 years patients with an SAE improved less than those without an SAE based on SRS-22 (0.52 vs. 0.79, P = 0.004) and ODI (-11.59 vs. -17.34, P = 0.021). These differences were maintained at 4-years for both SRS-22 (0.51 vs. 0.86, P = 0.001) and ODI (-10.73 vs. -16.69, P = 0.012). Despite this effect, patients sustaining an operative SAE had greater PROM improvement than nonoperative patients (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients affected by SAEs following surgery for ASLS had significantly less improvement of PROMs at 2- and 4-year follow-ups versus those without an SAE. Regardless of SAE occurrence, operatively treated patients had significantly greater improvement in PROMs than those treated nonoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".