P.087 Early and late exercise intervention after lumbar microdiscectomy reduces low back pain, fear avoidance, and improve neurodynamic mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Exercise is commonly recommended to patients following a lumbar microdiscectomy although controversy remains as to the timing and protocols for exercise intervention (early vs late intervention). Our study aimed to evaluate low back pain level, fear avoidance, neurodynamic mobility, and function after early versus later exercise intervention following a unilateral lumbar microdiscectomy. Methods: Forty patients who underwent unilateral lumbar microdiscectomy were randomly allocated to early (Group-1) or later (Group-2) exercise intervention group. The low back pain and fear avoidance were evaluated using Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire. The neurodynamic mobility and function were recorded with Dualer Pro IQ Inclinometer, 50-foot walk test, and Patient-Specific Functional Scale. Measurements were performed before surgery and post-surgery (1-2, 4-6, and 8-10 weeks) after exercise intervention. Results: Both groups showed a significant decrease in low back pain levels and fear avoidance as well as a significant improvement in neurodynamic mobility and function at 4 and 8 weeks post-surgery. No significant difference was detected between the two groups. Conclusions: These findings showed that early exercise intervention after lumbar microdiscectomy is safe and may reduce the low back pain, decrease fear avoidance, and improve neurodynamic mobility and function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
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".