MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416499923 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.14.029

DRIVERS INFLUENCING EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT “BOUNCE BACKS” FOLLOWING SPINE SURGERY

2025· article· en· W4416499923 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jenna Smith‐Forrester, J-A. Douglas, Endre Németh, J Alant, Susan Barry, Andrew Glennie, William Oxner, Lutz Weise, Sean Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentPsychological interventionPresentation (obstetrics)Failed back surgeryMedical recordHealth careSpinal surgeryChart

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emergency department (ED) crowding has become an epidemic in Canada and the assessment of post-operative “bounce backs” after spinal surgery is a critical aspect of both quality assurance and improvement efforts. Laminectomies and discectomies are among the most common surgical interventions for various spinal pathologies. Our primary objective was to identify “bounce back” patterns and potential areas for improvement in patient education and management, ultimately reducing the likelihood of presentation to the ED. All provincial ED datasets (EDIS, STAR & Meditech) were queried over 6 fiscal years identifying patients presenting within 90 days of spine surgery. Identification of surgical procedures was completed using the Canadian Classification of Health Interventions codes (1SC80 and 1SE87). A detailed chart review was conducted for each patient who rebounded to any provincial ED within 90 days of a laminectomy/discectomy. The reason for presentation to the ED was categorized as unrelated (medical) or related (surgical) to the procedure. Between April 1, 2016 – March 31, 2022, a total of 1032 laminectomies and 1133 discectomies were performed on 990 and 1036 patients, respectively. A total of 912 ED visits (n=448 post-laminectomy and n=464 post-discectomy) occurred within 90 days of 2165 surgeries. Reasons for ED visits were categorized as medical (42.6%) or surgical (57.4%). For ED visits related to their surgery, wound care (28.0%), pain management (26.5%) and bladder issues (17.9%) were the most common reasons for presentation. Drainage from the incision (serous or blood) and routine wound checks accounted for 59.1% and surgical site infections account for 27.2% of visits related to the wound. Patients presenting with pain as a primary complaint were discharged home with additional pain medications in 69.1% of cases, whereas 26.0% of patients presented in a pain crisis requiring hospital admission. A significant number of patients present to the ED following spine surgery. Multiple areas of care improvement have been identified. Immediate initiatives should be focused on post-operative education, pain management and system change to facilitate wound management outside of the ED.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207