Comparison of Functional and Radiological Outcomes of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterolateral Fusion Techniques in the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare posterolateral fusion with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLF + TLIF) and PLF only in terms of revision surgery rates and complications, as well as functional and radiological outcomes in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients. METHODS: Seventy-one patients (37 patients in the PLF + TLIF group and 34 patients in the PLF only group) who underwent surgery due to LSS between January 2013 and December 2016 were retrospectively investigated. Functional evaluation was performed by using the McGill-Melzack Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scales pre-and postoperatively. Radiological evaluation was made by examining adjacent vertebrae, posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) morphology, and sagittal balance on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). RESULTS: Postoperative MPQ, RMDQ, and ODI scores were significantly better in the PLF + TLIF group (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.001, respectively). The complication rate was significantly higher in the PLF only group (p = 0.026). In the PLF + TLIF group, postoperative functional scores showed significant improvement in terms of the instrumented segment and level of interbody fusion. Postoperative functional scores showed significant improvement in PLF + TLIF patients with no complications, no revision surgery, no postoperative MRI findings, and neutral sagittal balance compared to the preoperative functional scores (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PLF + TLIF is significantly superior in terms of functional scores and complications, despite the statistical similarity in terms of postoperative MRI findings and sagittal balance between the groups. Surgeons should prefer PLF + TLIF for the surgical treatment of LSS for better results.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".