AO Spine Clinical Practice Recommendations for the Surgical Management of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: When to Decompress Alone and When to Fuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design Literature review. Objective To provide a concise review of outcomes of decompression and fusion (D + F) vs decompression (D) alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). Methods 6 articles were selected, including 3 randomized clinical trials (RCT), 2 meta-analyses, and 1 radiographic cohort study. Summarized factors affecting the outcomes of D + F vs D alone for DLS and provide expert level clinical recommendations. Results Ghogawala included DLS patients showing improved SF-36 scores ( P = 0.046) and lower re-operation rates ( P = 0.05) in D + F patients compared to D alone. Forsth, included patients with stenosis both with and without DLS, and showed no difference in any reported outcome measure or reoperation rate. Austevoll included DLS patients that found that D alone was non-inferior to D + F in the primary outcome measure of ODI reduction at 2-year after surgery. Gadjradi included studies showing higher morbidity in the D + F group, as compared to D alone. Shukla included studies which found there was no difference in the raw patient outcome scores at final follow-up. Blumenthal included DLS patients who received D and reported disc height of >6.5 mm, facet angle >50°, and dynamic motion >1.25 mm were associated with high re-operation rates (45%, 39%, and 54% respectively). Conclusions The RCT’s and meta-analyses report contradictory conclusions and no blanket statement regarding the efficacy of D + F vs D alone can be made for all patients with DLS. Surgeons should closely review pre-operative imaging for signs of instability in order to better identify appropriate patients for each indication.
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 | 0.028 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.007 |
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".