Revision surgery following minimally invasive decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with and without stable degenerative spondylolisthesis: a 5- to 15-year reoperation survival analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive decompression (MID) is an effective procedure for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Long-term follow-up data on reoperation rates are lacking. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate reoperation rates in patients with LSS who underwent MID, stratified for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS), with a follow-up between 5 and 15 years. METHODS: All consecutive patients with LSS who underwent MID between 2002 and 2011 were included. All patients had neurogenic claudication from central and/or lateral recess stenosis, without or with up to 25% of slippage (grade I spondylolisthesis), and no obvious dynamic instability on imaging (increase in spondylolisthesis by ≥ 5 mm demonstrated on supine-to-standing or flexion-extension imaging). Reoperation rates defined as any operation on the same or adjacent level were assessed. Revision decompression alone was considered if the aforementioned clinical and radiographic criteria were met; otherwise, patients underwent a minimally invasive posterior fusion. RESULTS: A total of 246 patients (mean age 66 years) were included. Preoperative spondylolisthesis was present in 56.9%. The mean follow-up period was 8.2 years (range 5.0-14.9 years). The reoperation rates in patients with and without spondylolisthesis were 15.7% and 15.1%, respectively; fusion was required in 7.1% and 7.5%, with no significant difference (redecompression only, p = 0.954; fusion, p = 0.546). For decompression only, the mean times to reoperation were 3.9 years (95% CI 1.8-6.0 years) for patients with DLS and 2.8 years (95% CI 1.3-4.2 years) for patients without DLS; for fusion, the mean times to reoperation were 3.1 years (95% CI 1.0-5.3 years) and 3.1 years (95% CI 1.1-5.1 years), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In highly selected patients with stable DLS and leg-dominant pain from central or lateral recess stenosis, the long-term reoperation rate is similar between DLS and non-DLS patients undergoing MIS decompression.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".