Surgical Management of Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Stenosis with Spondylolisthesis via Posterior Reduction with Minimal Laminectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis is commonly treated with laminectomy. Recent reports have consistently supported the incremental clinical benefit of associated in situ arthrodesis with or without instrumentation. Resection of the lamina may result in intraoperative dural tear or epidural scar formation. Fifty-six consecutive patients with back pain, neuroclaudication, or both, in addition to degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis, underwent a surgical procedure that incorporated fusion after reduction of the spondylolisthesis deformity with preservation of the lamina and the balance of the posterior elements. Clinical records were reviewed and patients interviewed at a mean of 33 months after surgery. Oswestry Disability Index scores were obtained independently at baseline and at a late review. Late imaging was available a mean of 28 months after operation. Clinical and imaging analyses and Oswestry scoring confirmed results comparable to the published outcomes of in situ fusion after formal laminectomy. Resection of the lamina may not be necessary in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".