Evidence mapPaperPMID 36849239Full record

SynthesisJournal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry2023

Decompression alone versus decompression with instrumented fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Radek Kaiser, Lucia Kantorová, Alena Langaufová, Simona Slezáková, Dagmar Tučková, Miloslav Klugar, Zdeněk Klézl, Pavel Barsa, Jan Cienciala, Richard Hajdúk and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Radiographic phenotype-driven clustering in lumbar decompression: comparative study of outcome and reoperation risk.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Decompression only versus decompression plus fusion for spinal canal stenosis of adjacent segment during primary single-segment lumbar fusion surgery.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  12. Comparable long-term pain and disability outcomes following decompression alone versus decompression with fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis patients with high-signal facet joints.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Evaluating surgical interventions for low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a network meta-analysis of decompression alone, fusion, and dynamic stabilization.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Full-endoscopic foraminotomy in low-grade degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis: a patient-specific tailored approach.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Radek Kaiser *Department of Neurosurgery and Neurooncology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic Radek.Kaiser@uvn.cz.ORCID 0000-0002-5985-9595
Lucia Kantorová *Czech National Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation (Cochrane Czech Republic, Czech EBHC: JBI Centre of Excellence, Masaryk University GRADE Centre), Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University Faculty of Medicine, Brno, Czech Republic.
Alena LangaufováCzech National Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation (Cochrane Czech Republic, Czech EBHC: JBI Centre of Excellence, Masaryk University GRADE Centre), Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University Faculty of Medicine, Brno, Czech Republic.
Simona SlezákováCzech National Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation (Cochrane Czech Republic, Czech EBHC: JBI Centre of Excellence, Masaryk University GRADE Centre), Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University Faculty of Medicine, Brno, Czech Republic.
Dagmar TučkováCzech National Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation (Cochrane Czech Republic, Czech EBHC: JBI Centre of Excellence, Masaryk University GRADE Centre), Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University Faculty of Medicine, Brno, Czech Republic.
Miloslav KlugarCzech National Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation (Cochrane Czech Republic, Czech EBHC: JBI Centre of Excellence, Masaryk University GRADE Centre), Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University Faculty of Medicine, Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-2804-7295
Zdeněk KlézlDepartment of Spinal Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Pavel BarsaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Regional Hospital Liberec, Liberec, Czech Republic.
Jan CiencialaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Richard HajdúkDepartment of Spinal Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Lumír HrabálekDepartment of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Roman KučeraDepartment of Neurosurgery, Na Homolce Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.
David NetukaDepartment of Neurosurgery and Neurooncology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Martin PrýmekDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Martin RepkoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Martin SmrčkaUniversity Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic.
Jan ŠtulíkDepartment of Spinal Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Masaryk University · CZCharles University · CZKrajská Nemocnice Liberec · CZNa Homolce Hospital · CZUniversity Hospital Olomouc · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the efficacy of adding instrumented spinal fusion to decompression to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).

designSystematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to May 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing decompression with instrumented fusion to decompression alone in patients with DS. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We provide the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment of the certainty of evidence (COE).

resultsWe identified 4514 records and included four trials with 523 participants. At a 2-year follow-up, adding fusion to decompression likely results in trivial difference in the Oswestry Disability Index (range 0-100, with higher values indicating greater impairment) with mean difference (MD) 0.86 (95% CI -4.53 to 6.26; moderate COE). Similar results were observed for back and leg pain measured on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher values indicating more severe pain. There was a slightly increased improvement in back pain (2-year follow-up) in the group without fusion shown by MD -5·92 points (95% CI -11.00 to -0.84; moderate COE). There was a trivial difference in leg pain between the groups, slightly favouring the one without fusion, with MD -1.25 points (95% CI -6.71 to 4.21; moderate COE). Our findings at 2-year follow-up suggest that omitting fusion may increase the reoperation rate slightly (OR 1.23; 0.70 to 2.17; low COE).

conclusionsEvidence suggests no benefits of adding instrumented fusion to decompression for treating DS. Isolated decompression seems sufficient for most patients. Further RCTs assessing spondylolisthesis stability are needed to determine which patients would benefit from fusion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022308267.

Indexed as

Spinal FusionSpinal StenosisSpondylolisthesisDecompression, SurgicalHumansLumbar VertebraePainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID36849239
PMCPMC10359551
OpenAlexW4322491313

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.