Posterolateral Versus Posterior Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study of 2 different fusion techniques for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether posterior lumbar interbody fusion (IF) is associated with improved patient-rated satisfaction and functional outcome when compared with posterolateral fusion (PLF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: IF and PLF are widely used surgical approaches in the treatment of spondylolisthesis. Numerous studies have compared IF and PLF techniques, but inconsistent results, heterogeneous cohorts, and conflicting scientific evidence have made it difficult to reach a consensus on the optimal fusion technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive cohort of 87 patients who had single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis and either PLF or IF were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Short Form-36 physical and mental component score, Oswestry Disability Index, back and leg pain, and complication rate were assessed to 24 months postoperatively. Patient characteristics, clinical outcome, and complications were compared between groups. RESULTS: Of the 87 patients identified, 29 patients (33%) had PLF and 58 patients (67%) had IF. Patient follow-up was ≥85%. Foraminal stenosis (PLF, 13.8% vs. IF, 34.5%; P=0.046) was more common among the participants in the IF group. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were not different between groups (P>0.05). The reoperation rate was 3.4% in the PLF group and 10.3% in the IF group (P=0.416). Patients in the PLF group experienced similar gains in improvement in all outcome measures as those in the IF group (P>0.05). Four patients in the IF group and 3 in the PLF group were lacking evidence of radiographic fusion. These patients did have increased moderate back pain compared with patients demonstrating radiographic fusion but did not differ in any other postoperative outcomes measures. CONCLUSIONS: Type of fusion, IF or PLF, does not affect patient outcome or postoperative complication rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".