ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025
Evaluating surgical interventions for low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a network meta-analysis of decompression alone, fusion, and dynamic stabilization.
Article in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate which of the decompression alone (DA), decompression with fusion (DF), and decompression with dynamic stabilization (DS) produced the most favorable outcome for patients with low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (LDLS). MATERIAL AND
methodPubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched for all studies published before October 1, 2023. A review and data analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of three interventions was performed by Stata (version 17.0) and Review Manager (version 5.4).
result21 RCT studies with 3192 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. DA was superior to DF (MD = -92.05, P < 0.05; MD = -295.57, P < 0.05; MD = -2.19, P < 0.05; RR = 0.54, P < 0.05, respectively) and DS (MD = -35.69, P < 0.05; MD = -100.7, P < 0.05; MD = -295.57, P < 0.05; MD = -2.19, P < 0.05; RR = 0.54, P < 0.05, respectively) in reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative adverse events. DS was superior to DF in reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay (MD = -56.35, P < 0.05; MD = -194.84, P < 0.05; MD = -1.12, P < 0.05, respectively). DF was superior to DA in reducing reoperations (RR = 0.55, p < 0.05). DF was superior to DA (MD = -1.44, p < 0.05) and DS (MD = -0.41, p < 0.05) in controlling the progression of olisthesis.
conclusionDA was the most favorable treatment for LDLS, reducing operative time, bleeding, hospital stay, and postoperative complications. DF outperformed DA in reducing reoperation rates. Although DS showed benefits in operative time and bleeding compared to DF, it did not offer a significant advantage over DA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40108039What 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.