C.04 Comparison of clinical outcomes between posterior instrumented fusion with and without interbody fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study is to compare 1-year postoperative clinical outcomes between posterior instrumented fusion with (P/TLIF) and without (PLF) interbody fusion in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. Methods: This is a multi-centre retrospective study using the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network. Adult patients who received surgical management for isthmic spondylolisthesis were included in this study. The primary outcome was change in Oswestry Disability Index at 1-year. Secondary outcomes were change in EQ-5D, SF-12 PCS, back pain, leg pain, estimated blood loss, length of surgery, length of stay, rate of transfusions and adverse events. Descriptive statistics, Student t-test, Chi-Squared test, and stepwise multivariable regression were used for analysis. Results: A total of 300 patients (252 P/TLIF, 48 PLF) were included in this study. The mean age was 50 years. The P/TLIF group had poorer baseline leg pain scores (t=2.02, p=0.01). There were no significant differences in primary and secondary outcomes between the two groups. Addition of interbody fusion was not a significant variable in the stepwise multivariable regression analysis. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes at 1 year. Addition of interbody fusion was not associated with higher complication rates or length of stay.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".