Early Versus Delayed Microdiscectomy for Chronic Sciatica Lasting 4–12 Months Secondary to Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of delaying surgery on clinical outcome in patients with chronic sciatica secondary to lumbar disc herniation. METHODS: Patients with sciatica lasting 4-12 months and lumbar disc herniation at the L4-L5 or L5-S1 level were randomized to undergo microdiscectomy (early surgery) or to receive 6 months of nonoperative treatment followed by surgery if needed (delayed surgery). Outcomes were leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index score (ODI), back pain, SF-36 physical component (PCS) and mental component (MCS) summary scores, employment, and satisfaction measured preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. RESULTS: Of the 64 patients in the early surgery group, 56 underwent microdiscectomy an average of 3 ± 2 weeks after enrollment. Of the 64 patients randomized to nonoperative care, 22 patients underwent delayed surgery an average of 53 ± 24 weeks after enrollment. The early surgery group experienced less leg pain than the delayed surgery group, which was the primary outcome, at 6 months after surgery (early surgery 2.8 ± .4 vs delayed surgery 4.8 ± .7; difference, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, .5-3.5). The overall estimated mean difference between groups significantly favored early surgery for leg pain, ODI, SF36-PCS, and back pain. The adverse event rate was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting with chronic sciatica treated with delayed surgery after prolonging standardized non-operative care have inferior outcomes compared to those that undergo expedited surgery.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".