ArticleNeurospine2024
National Trends in Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis With Stenosis Treated With Fusion Versus Decompression.
Article in Neurospine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interlaminar versus sublaminar lumbar decompression: a retrospective study on patient satisfaction as measured by PROMIS outcomes.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Clinical and Surgical Outcomes in Patients with Lumbar Spine Pathologies: A Retrospective Study.Reports (MDPI) · 2026Article
- Interspinous process fixation versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion following decompression for single-level grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis: a retrospective propensity score-matched study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Long-term comparative study of Open-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, and UBE-TLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Article
- Bilateral-Contralateral Endoscopic Decompression as a Fusion-Deferral Strategy in Upper Lumbar Stenosis: A Structural Rationale and Conditional Framework-A Technical Note with Cases Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to describe utilization, demographics, complications, and revisions for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with stenosis undergoing decompression or decompression with fusion in the United States.
methodsA national insurance database was used to identify patients who underwent either decompression and fusion or decompression alone for management of DS from 2010-2022. Utilization trends, demographics, and complications for each procedure were compared.
resultsA total of 162,878 patients were identified, of which 78,043 patients underwent combined single-level lumbar decompression and fusion and 84,835 underwent single-level lumbar decompression alone. Between 2010-2021, lumbar decompression and fusion became the predominant surgical intervention for DS in 2016 and continued to account for more than half of all procedures during the remainder of the study period. Factors such as age, sex, comorbidities, geographic region, and physician specialty training were associated with procedure choice. Decompression with fusion was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery up to 5 years postoperatively and an overall lower incidence of 30-day complications.
conclusionDecompression with fusion has become the most common treatment for lumbar DS over the past decade despite a lack of compelling evidence supporting its use compared to decompression alone. A variety of patient and surgeon-specific factors is associated with procedure choice. After accounting for cofounders, we identified treatment-specific complications that may be valuable when counseling patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.