Evaluation of Health-related Quality of Life Improvement in Patients Undergoing Spine Versus Adult Reconstructive Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of outcomes in single-level spine and primary hip and knee arthroplasty patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare baseline and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery procedures with total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to further define outcomes in orthopedic surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Computer-adaptive Patient Reported Outcome Information System (PROMIS) allows for standardized assessment of the health-related quality of life across different disease states. METHODS: Patients who underwent spine surgery (anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement, lumbar laminectomy, microscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or adult reconstruction surgery [THA, TKA]) were grouped. Mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Baseline (BL), and 6-month PROMIS scores of physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity were determined. Paired t tests compared differences in CCI, BL, 6 months, and change in PROMIS scores for spine and adult reconstruction procedures. RESULTS: A total of 304 spine surgery patients (age = 58.1 ± 15.6; 42.9% female) and 347 adult reconstruction patients (age = 62.9 ± 11.8; 54.1% Female) were compared. Spine surgery groups had more disability and pain at baseline than adult reconstruction patients according to physical function ([21.0, 22.2, 9.07, 12.6, 10.4] vs. [35.8, 35.0], respectively, P < 0.01), pain interference ([80.1, 74.1, 89.6, 92.5, 90.6] vs. [64.0, 63.9], respectively, P < 0.01), and pain intensity ([53.0, 53.1, 58.3, 58.5, 56.1] vs. [53.4, 53.8], respectively, P < 0.01). At 6 months, spine surgery patients remained more disabled and had more pain compared to adult reconstruction patients. Over the 6-month timespan, spine patients experienced greater improvements than adult reconstruction patients in terms of physical function ([+8.7, +22.2, +9.7, +12.9, +12.1] vs. [+5.3, +3.9], respectively, P < 0.01) and pain interference scores ([-15.4,-28.1, -14.7, -13.1, -12.3] vs. [-8.3, -6.0], respectively, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Spinal surgery patients had lower BL and 6-month PROMIS scores, but greater relative improvement in PROMIS scores compared to adult reconstruction patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".