The Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To identify whether there is an advantage to instrumented or noninstrumented spinal fusion over decompression alone for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The operative management of degenerative spondylolisthesis includes spinal decompression with or without instrumented or noninstrumented spinal fusion. Evidence on the operative management of degenerative spondylolisthesis is still divisive. METHODS: Relevant RCT and comparative observational studies between 1966 and June 2005 were identified. Abstracted outcomes included clinical outcome, reoperation rate, and solid fusion status. Analyses were separated into: 1) fusion versus decompression alone and 2) instrumented fusion versus noninstrumented fusion. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. The studies were generally of low methodologic quality. A satisfactory clinical outcome was significantly more likely with fusion than with decompression alone (relative risk, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.89; P < 0.05). The use of adjunctive instrumentation significantly increased the probability of attaining solid fusion (relative risk, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.75; P < 0.05), but no significant improvement in clinical outcome was recorded (relative risk, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.54). There was a nonsignificant trend toward lower repeat operations with fusion compared with both decompression alone and instrumented fusion. CONCLUSION: Spinal fusion may lead to a better clinical outcome than decompression alone. No conclusion about the clinical benefit of instrumenting a spinal fusion could be made. However, there is moderate evidence that the use of instrumentation improves the chance of achieving solid fusion.
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".