What is the Optimal Surgical Method for Achieving Correction and Avoiding Neurological Complications in Pediatric High-grade Spondylolisthesis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy persists in the treatment of high-grade spondylolisthesis (HGS). Surgery is recommended in patients with intrusive symptoms and evidence debates the competing strategies. This study compares the radiologic outcomes and postoperative complications at a minimum of 2 years follow-up for patients with HGS treated with instrumented fusion with partial reduction (IFIS) with those treated with reduction, decompression, and instrumented fusion (RIF). We hypothesize that IFIS leads to a lower rate of complication and revision surgery than RIF. METHODS: A retrospective comparative methodology was used to analyze consecutive HGS treated surgically between 2006 and 2017. Patients diagnosed with ≥grade 3 spondylolisthesis treated with arthrodesis before the age of 18 years with a minimum of 2 years follow-up were included. Patients were excluded if surgery did not aim to achieve arthrodesis or was a revision procedure. Cases were identified through departmental and neurophysiological records. RESULTS: Thirty patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 4 years. Ten patients underwent IFIS and the remaining 20 underwent RIF. The 2 groups showed no difference in demographics, grade of slip, deformity or presenting symptoms. Of 10 treated with IFIS, the SA reduced by a mean of 10 degrees and C7 sagittal vertical line changed by 31 mm. In the RIF cohort, SA reduced by 16 degrees and C7 sagittal vertical line reduced by 26 mm. PT was unchanged in both groups. In IFIS cohort, 2 patients showed postoperative weakness, resolved by 2 years. None required revision surgery. In the RIF group, 4 sustained dural tears and 1 a laminar fracture, 7 showed postoperative weakness or dysaesthesia, 3 of which had not resolved by 2 years. Eight patients underwent unplanned further surgery, 3 for pseudarthrosis. CONCLUSIONS: RIF and IFIS show similar radiologic outcomes. RIF shows a higher rate of unplanned return to surgery, pseudarthrosis and persisting neurological changes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective comparative study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".