Outcome of One-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Spondylolisthesis and Postoperative Intervertebral Disc Degeneration Adjacent to the Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Review of the clinical and radiologic records of patients who underwent one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) at L4-L5. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adjacent intervertebral disc degeneration after PLIF affects the clinical results, and whether preoperative caudal disc (L5-S1) degeneration affects postoperative clinical results. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is little reliable information in the literature regarding clinical results and adjacent disc degeneration after PLIF. METHODS: Forty-five patients who underwent L4-L5 PLIF for spondylolisthesis with more than 5 years of postoperative observation were included in this study. PLIF was performed in conjunction with posterior instrumentation. The posterior lumbar intervertebral grafting was performed using both autograft and a ceramic spacer. Intervertebral disc heights at L2-L3, L3-L4, and L5-S1 were measured before and after surgery. The patients were divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of the preoperative L5-S1 narrowing. Correlation between clinical status evaluated by the recovery rate of the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and disc heights were determined. RESULTS: All intervertebral disc heights adjacent to the fusion decreased after surgery (P < 0.05). However, no significant correlation was seen between clinical results estimated by the recovery rate and postoperative disc narrowing. There was also no significant difference in clinical results between patients with or without preoperative L5-S1 narrowing. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from the results that postoperative narrowing of the adjacent disc and preoperative narrowing of the L5-S1 disc affects the clinical outcome of L4-L5 PLIF.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".