Surgical Restoration of Sagittal Alignment of the Spine: Correlation with Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sagittal-plane curvatures of the human spine are the consequence of evolution from quadrupedalism to bipedalism and are needed to maintain the center of mass of the body within the base of support in the bipedal position. Lumbar degenerative disorders can lead to a decrease in lumbar lordosis and thereby affect overall alignment of the spine. However, there is not yet enough direct evidence that surgical restoration of spinal malalignment would lead to a better clinical outcome. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the correlation between patient-reported outcomes and actual obtained spinal sagittal alignment in adult patients with lumbar degenerative disorders who underwent surgical treatment. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted through databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Embase). The last search was in November 2018. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. A meta-regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 2,024 unique articles in the original search, 34 articles with 973 patients were included. All studies were either retrospective or prospective cohort studies; no randomized controlled trials were available. A total of 54 relations between preoperative-to-postoperative improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiographic spinopelvic parameters were found, of which 20 were eligible for meta-regression analysis. Of these, 2 correlations were significant: pelvic tilt (PT) versus Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (p = 0.009) and PT versus visual analog scale (VAS) pain (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the current literature, lower PT was significantly correlated with improved ODI and VAS pain in patients with sagittal malalignment caused by lumbar degenerative disorders that were treated with surgical correction of the sagittal balance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".