Surgery Versus Conservative Management in Adult Isthmic Spondylolisthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective randomized study was performed. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether posterolateral fusion in patients with adult isthmic spondylolisthesis results in an improved outcome compared with an exercise program. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In spondylolisthesis, satisfactory results have been reported with both surgical and conservative management. The evidence for treatment efficacy, however, is weak because prospective randomized studies are lacking. METHODS: In this study, 111 patients were randomly allocated to an exercise program (n = 34) or posterolateral fusion with or without transpedicular fixation (n = 77). The inclusion criteria were lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis of any grade, at least 1 year of low back pain or sciatica, and a severely restricted functional ability in individuals 18 to 55 years of age. Pain and functional disability were quantified before treatment and at 1- and 2-year follow-up assessments by visual analog scales (VAS). RESULTS: The 2-year follow-up rate was 93%. The functional outcome, as assessed by the Disability Rating Index and the pain reduction, was better in the surgically treated group than in the exercise group at both the 1- and 2-year follow-up assessments (P < 0.01). In the longitudinal analysis, the mean Disability Rating Index and pain improved in the surgical group (P < 0.0001). In the exercise group, the Disability Rating Index did not change at all, whereas the pain decreased slightly (P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical management of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis improves function and relieves pain more efficiently than an exercise program.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".