MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395956171 · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2024.04.019

Poor postoperative pain control is associated with poor long-term patient-reported outcomes after elective spine surgery: an observational cohort study

2024· article· en· W4395956171 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Yang, Rena Far, Jay Riva-Cambrin, Tolulope T. Sajobi, Steven Casha

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Spine Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyPain controlCohortPostoperative painSurgeryCohort studyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: A significant proportion of patients experience poorly controlled surgical pain and fail to achieve satisfactory clinical improvement after spine surgery. However, a direct association between these variables has not been previously demonstrated. PURPOSE: To investigate the association between poor postoperative pain control and patient-reported outcomes after spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Ambispective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Consecutive adult patients (≥18-years old) undergoing inpatient elective cervical or thoracolumbar spine surgery. OUTCOME MEASURE: Poor surgical outcome was defined as failure to achieve a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 30% improvement on the Oswestry Disability Index or Neck Disability Index at follow-up (3-months, 1-year, and 2-years). METHODS: Poor pain control was defined as a mean numeric rating scale score of >4 during the first 24-hours after surgery. Multivariable mixed-effects regression was used to investigate the relationship between poor pain control and changes in surgical outcomes while adjusting for known confounders. Secondarily, the Calgary Postoperative Pain After Spine Surgery (CAPPS) Score was investigated for its ability to predict poor surgical outcome. RESULTS: Of 1294 patients, 47.8%, 37.3%, and 39.8% failed to achieve the MCID at 3-months, 1-year, and 2-years, respectively. The incidence of poor pain control was 56.9%. Multivariable analyses showed poor pain control after spine surgery was independently associated with failure to achieve the MCID (OR 2.35 [95% CI=1.59-3.46], p<.001) after adjusting for age (p=.18), female sex (p=.57), any nicotine products (p=.041), ASA physical status >2 (p<.001), ≥3 motion segment surgery (p=.008), revision surgery (p=.001), follow-up time (p<.001), and thoracolumbar surgery compared to cervical surgery (p=.004). The CAPPS score was also found to be independently predictive of poor surgical outcome. CONCLUSION: Poor pain control in the first 24-hours after elective spine surgery was an independent risk factor for poor surgical outcome. Perioperative treatment strategies to improve postoperative pain control may lead to improved patient-reported surgical outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Spine JournalSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207