Presurgical rehabilitation program for patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: A pilot randomized controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (SLSS) is the most common diagnosis associated with spine surgery for those over the age of 55 years. There is a lack of quality research on the effectiveness of prehabilitation on pain, function, and quality of life in patients undergoing surgery for SLSS. This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) will evaluate the feasibility of an eHealth prehabilitation program for individuals undergoing SLSS surgery, and an embedded longitudinal qualitative study explores the perioperative patient experience and recovery trajectory.Methods Participants (n = 60) undergoing spine surgery for LSS will be randomized into the 8-week electronic health (eHealth) prehabilitation program or minimal intervention. The prehabilitation program will be delivered virtually using synchronous (one-on-one) and asynchronous (independent) sessions by an experienced clinician, consisting of motivational interviewing, exercise (graded activity), education, peer support groups, and a 6-week booster session. Participants in the minimal care group will receive usual care and will have access to educational videos. Primary outcomes will include (1) recruitment, (2) patient adherence, (3) acceptability of program content, (4) acceptability and compliance with study questionnaires, and (5) attrition. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, after the intervention, and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. We will conduct semistructured interviews alongside the RCT with 12 to 15 participants.Discussion The proposed project will include the feasibility testing of an eHealth LSS prehabilitation program with potential to improve surgical outcomes. Results of this study will provide the foundation for future fully powered multicenter RCTs.Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov NCT05073081
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 | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.007 |
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".