Assessment of Patient Reported Outcomes and Satisfaction following various Orthopedic Procedures, Such as Joint Replacements, Spinal Surgeries, or Fracture Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and satisfaction following orthopedic procedures, including joint replacements, spinal surgeries, and fracture management. Methods: A total of 208 participants who underwent orthopedic procedures were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. PROs were evaluated using validated outcome measures specific to each procedure, including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Patient satisfaction ratings were collected using a structured survey. Subgroup analyses and regression analyses were conducted to explore associations between PROs, patient satisfaction, and demographic/clinical factors. Results: The study population had a mean age of 52.3 years, with a relatively balanced gender distribution. Joint replacements were performed in 45.2% of participants, followed by spinal surgeries (32.7%) and fracture management (22.1%). Participants reported significant improvements in PROs following joint replacements, with higher WOMAC and SF-36 scores indicating reduced pain, improved physical function, and better health-related quality of life. Spinal surgery patients demonstrated reduced disability and improved well-being as reflected in lower Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and higher SF-36 scores. Fracture management patients showed improved functionality and quality of life, with higher SF-36 scores and lower Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) or Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) scores. Patient satisfaction ratings were high for all procedures, with joint replacement patients reporting high satisfaction with pain relief and functional improvement, spinal surgery patients reporting high satisfaction with pain management and overall treatment, and fracture management patients expressing high satisfaction with pain management and functional recovery. Subgroup analyses revealed significant differences in PRO scores and patient satisfaction ratings across the procedures, with joint replacements consistently demonstrating the highest scores. Conclusion: Orthopedic procedures, including joint replacements, spinal surgeries, and fracture management, result in significant improvements in PROs and high levels of patient satisfaction. These findings emphasize the effectiveness of these interventions in addressing pain, functional limitations, and overall well-being in patients undergoing orthopedic procedures.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".