Influence of postoperative sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters on the outcome of patients surgically treated for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The object of this study was to determine the association between postoperative sagittal spinopelvic alignment and patient-rated outcome measures following decompression and fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. METHODS The authors identified a consecutive series of patients who had undergone surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis between 2008 and 2012, with an average follow-up of 3 years (range 1-6 years). Surgery was performed to address the clinical symptoms of spinal stenosis, not global sagittal alignment. Sagittal alignment was only assessed postoperatively. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on a postoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA) < 50 mm (well aligned) or ≥ 50 mm (poorly aligned). Baseline demographic, procedure, and outcome measures were compared between the groups. Postoperative outcome measures and postoperative spinopelvic parameters were compared between groups using analysis of covariance. RESULTS Of the 84 patients included in this study, 46.4% had an SVA < 50 mm. Multiple levels of spondylolisthesis (p = 0.044), spondylolisthesis at the L3-4 level (p = 0.046), and multiple levels treated with fusion (p = 0.028) were more common among patients in the group with an SVA ≥ 50 mm. Patients with an SVA ≥ 50 mm had a worse SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) score (p = 0.018), a worse Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; p = 0.043), and more back pain (p = 0.039) than those with an SVA < 50 mm after controlling for multiple levels of spondylolisthesis and multilevel fusion. The spinopelvic parameters differing between the < 50-mm and ≥ 50-mm groups included lumbar lordosis (LL; 56.4° ± 4.7° vs 49.8° ± 4.3°, respectively, p = 0.040) and LL < pelvic incidence ± 9° (51% vs 23.1%, respectively, p = 0.013) after controlling for type of surgical procedure. CONCLUSIONS Data in this study revealed that patient-rated outcome is influenced by the overall postoperative sagittal balance as defined by the SVA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".