Radiologic and Clinical Evaluation of Posterolateral Versus Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to compare foraminal height (FH) and disk height (DH) differences in posterolateral (PLF) and transforaminal interbody fusions (TLIFs) and secondarily correlate these measurements with patient-reported outcomes. BACKGROUND: The impact FH has on patient outcomes in degenerative lumbar spinal fusion surgery is unknown. Postoperative FH change and how it relates to patient-reported outcomes in posteriorly based procedures has not been well evaluated. METHODS: A retrospective review of a subset of patients from a prospective cohort from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network was undertaken. Radiographic assessment preoperatively, at 3 months and 1 year, with standing lumbar spine radiographs were completed. FH and DH were recorded at each time interval, differences between groups were compared, and correlations with patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred nine patients were included (23 PLF and 86 TLIF). At 3-month follow-up, the change in FH was greater in the TLIF group (mean difference =2.3; 95% CI: 0.8-3.5, P =0.002). The change in FH remained significantly different at 12 months (mean difference=1.6, 95% CI: 0.2, 3.0 mm, P =0.028). The change in DH was greater in the TLIF group, with a mean difference between groups of 4.1 mm (95% CI: 2.5, 5.7, P <0.001) and 3.6 mm (95% CI: 2.0, 5.3, P <0.001). A positive change in FH correlated with less back pain, less disability, and improved physical function in the TLIF group ( P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with PLF lost FH over time. An increased difference in FH at 1 year was associated with improved function and less back pain in the TLIF group.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".