In-hospital Course and Complications of Laminectomy Alone Versus Laminectomy Plus Instrumented Posterolateral Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the short-term outcomes of laminectomy with/without fusion for single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar DS is a common cause of low back and radicular pain. Controversy remains over the safety and efficacy of fusion in addition to standard decompressive surgery. METHODS: Patients with lumbar DS who underwent laminectomy alone or laminectomy plus posterolateral fusion at a single level were identified from the 2012-2017 NSQIP database. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, major complication, reoperation, readmission, as well as operative duration, need for blood transfusion, length of stay (LOS), and discharge destination. Outcomes were compared between treatment groups by multivariable regression, adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities (modified Frailty Index). Effect sizes were reported by adjusted odds ratio (aOR) or mean difference (aMD). RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 1804 patients; of these, 802 underwent laminectomy alone and 1002 laminectomy plus fusion. On both unadjusted and adjusted analyses, there was no difference in 30-day mortality, major complications, reoperation, or readmission. However, laminectomy plus fusion was associated with longer operative time (170.0 vs. 152.7 minutes; aMD 16.00 minutes, P < 0.001), longer hospital LOS (3.2 vs. 2.5 days; aMD 0.68, P < 0.001), more frequent need for intra- or postoperative blood transfusion (6.8% vs. 3.1%; aOR 2.24, P = 0.001), and less frequent discharge home (80.7% vs. 89.2%; aOR 0.46, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We found single-level laminectomy plus fusion for lumbar DS to have a comparable short-term safety profile to laminectomy alone. However, fusion was associated with longer operative time and LOS, higher risk of blood transfusion, and greater need for inpatient rehabilitation. These factors should be recognized by clinicians and discussed with patients in the context of their values when weighing surgical treatment of lumbar DS.Level of Evidence: 3.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".