Comparison of Quality of Life Following Single- Event Multilevel Surgery (SEMLS) Using Bandaging and Casting Immobilization Methods in Cerebral Palsy Children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cerebral palsy (CP) is a non-progressive Neurodevelopmental disorder mainly treated using Single-event multilevel surgery (SEMLS). SEMLS contains using a casting method to immobilize the operated limb. However, in the present study, in addition to casting, the bandaging method was also applied. Bandaging is a newer method compared to casting. No study has used bandage for post-surgery immobilization. According to the best knowledge of the authors, no study has compared the outcome of bandage and cast for postoperative immobilization regarding the rehabilitation and quality of life (QoL) in the first and third months following the surgery, within the recovery period, which is associated with consequences like caring, hygiene, transferring, and mobility that affect the spirit and function of children. As a result, we decided to investigate the effect of these methods on the QoL of children the following surgery to treat CP. MATERIALS & METHODS: Following an analytical cross-sectional design, 100 children (aged 4-12 years) were randomly divided into hemiplegic and diplegic CP. The Cerebral Palsy QoL questionnaire (CP QOL-Child) was filled by parents of the participants. Based on the type of administered immobilizer, 80 children were randomly divided into two groups (40 subjects in each group). All subjects were evaluated using a similar questionnaire in the first and third months after surgery. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney test and ANOVA test were used to compare the study groups. RESULTS: The mean ratio of QoL changes, based on the CP QoL-Child questionnaire, was significantly increased in the bandage group during the first month after surgery. However, for the cast group, this parameter was significantly decreased (P<0.001). In the third month after surgery, the mean ratio of QoL changes was significantly increased in both groups, but the difference in the mean ratio of QoL changes between the two methods wasn't significant (P=0.64). CONCLUSION: In the first month after surgery, the bandaging method was more effective than the casting method, but in the third month, the outcomes were similar for both groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".