MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413751147 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0330926

Decompression with interbody fusion versus decompression alone for degenerative lumbar diseases: A meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4413751147 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuxian Chen, Shenglin Lei, Wei Lin, Shuling Gu, Dong-ping Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecompressionMedicineLumbarSurgeryMeta-analysisSpinal fusionDegenerative disc diseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To appraise the clinical effectiveness and complications of two surgical approaches, namely decompression alone (DA) versus decompression with interbody fusion (DF), in managing degenerative lumbar diseases (DLD). METHODS: As of July 1, 2024, an exhaustive search identified all randomized controlled studies and cohort studies comparing DA and DF in DLD management. Relevant data were extracted using strict criteria, and study quality was assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The extracted outcomes encompassed a range of measures, including operative duration, intraoperative hemorrhage, hospitalization length, time to ambulation, short form 12 physical component score (SF12-PCS), low back pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, leg pain VAS score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese orthopedic association (JOA) score, EuroQol five dimensions (EQ-5D), incidence of complications, reoperation rate, and Odom's criteria. RESULTS: A total of 35 articles were included in this study, involving 12,030 patients. Of these, 7,442 patients were in the DA group, while 4,588 were in the DF group. Operative duration was shorter (MD = -89.09, 95%CI -92.71, -85.47, P < 0.00001), intraoperative hemorrhage was less (MD = -242.26, 95%CI -252.16, -232.36, P < 0.00001), hospitalization length was shorter (MD = -2.36, 95%CI -2.59, -2.14, P < 0.00001), and time to ambulation was reduced (MD = -10.49, 95%CI -12.52, -8.46, P < 0.00001) in the DA group than in the DF group. At the final follow-up for ODI, the DF group demonstrated statistically superior outcomes compared to the DA group (MD = 1.28, 95%CI 0.35, 2.21, P = 0.007). Data revealed no significant differences in SF12-PCS, JOA score, back pain VAS score, leg pain VAS score, final follow-up EQ-5D, reoperation rates, complication rates, and Odom's criteria (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: When treating DLD, DA offers more favorable outcomes in terms of operative duration, intraoperative hemorrhage, hospitalization length, and time to ambulation. These findings suggest that DA should be considered the preferred surgical approach for most DLD patients, unless specific indications for fusion exist. Clinicians should tailor decisions to each surgery's specifics to optimize patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024580975.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.055
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.255
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.144 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology→French-language works237,207→