A Critical Analysis of the Literature Regarding Surgical Approach and Outcome for Adult Low-Grade Isthmic Spondylolisthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of the radiographic and clinical outcomes of adult patients undergoing surgery for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis was performed to determine whether conclusions could be made regarding the optimal choice of surgically managing adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. METHODS: We tabulated the radiographic and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent a posterior procedure alone, an anterior procedure alone, or a combined anterior and posterior procedure. We also evaluated the influence of covariates such as laminectomy, spinal internal fixation, smoking, and secondary gain issues on these outcomes. Patients were pooled, and a chi analysis was performed to determine the relationship between surgical approach and patient outcome. A covariate analysis was performed to determine the influence of a laminectomy, spinal fixation, smoking, and secondary gain issues on these outcomes. RESULTS: The available literature consisted primarily of retrospective case series, with only 4 of 34 reports being prospective randomized controlled studies. Patients with combined anterior and posterior procedures were most likely to achieve a solid fusion and a successful clinical outcome. The use of spinal fixation also increased the chance of fusion and successful clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A pooling of the surgical literature on adult low-grade spondylolisthesis indicates that a combined anterior and posterior procedure most reliably achieves fusion and a successful clinical outcome. The literature, however, is primarily retrospective and heterogeneous with respect to indications for surgery and methods of evaluating outcome, providing a compelling rationale for a prospective randomized controlled trial of the various surgical approaches to this problem.
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 | 0.037 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".