Trial reportSpine2009
Degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion method influence outcome? Four-year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial.
Trial report in Spine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
58 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 183 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single level versus multi-level lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Is reduction better than arthrodesis in situ in surgical management of low-grade spondylolisthesis? A system review and meta analysis.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 · 2017Pooled it
- Degenerative spondylolisthesis: contemporary review of the role of interbody fusion.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2017Pooled it
- Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Management of lumbar spinal stenosis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Pooled it
- Development of appropriateness criteria for the surgical treatment of symptomatic lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS).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 · 2014Pooled it
- The comparison of instrumented and non-instrumented fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: a meta-analysis.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 · 2014Pooled it
- Surgery in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: indications, outcomes and complications. A systematic review.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 · 2014Pooled it
- Trial
- Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up.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 · 2013Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Cost and Utilization Trends of Lumbar Fusion.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Article
- Mapping the field of spondylolisthesis: A bibliometric analysis.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Article
- Noninstrumented Posterolateral Lumbar Fusions Continue to Fade Relative to Instrumented Posterolateral Approaches for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Over the Past Decade.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis instability classification (DSIC) system as a guide to surgical technique selection.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 · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for scoliosis: surgical technique for focal treatment of the lumbosacral fractional curve.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopy for the treatment of adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion in elderly patients: a matched comparison study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designClinical trial subgroup analysis.
objectiveTo compare outcomes of different fusion techniques treating degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). Summary of Background Data. Surgery has been shown to be more effective than nonoperative treatment out to 4 years. Questions remain regarding the differential effect of fusion technique.
methodsSurgical candidates from 13 centers in 11 states with at least 12 weeks of symptoms and confirmatory imaging showing stenosis and DS were studied. In addition to standard decompressive laminectomy, 1 of 3 fusion techniques was employed at the surgeon's discretion: posterolateral in situ fusion (PLF); posterolateral instrumented fusion with pedicle screws (PPS); or PPS plus interbody fusion (360 degrees). Main outcome measures were the SF-36 bodily pain (BP) and physical function (PF) scales and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) assessed at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly to 4 years. The as-treated analysis combined the randomized and observational cohorts using mixed longitudinal models adjusting for potential confounders.
resultsOf 380 surgical patients, 21% (N = 80) received a PLF; 56% (N = 213) received a PPS; 17% (N = 63) received a 360 degrees; and 6% (N = 23) had decompression only without fusion. Early outcomes varied, favoring PLF compared to PPS at 6 weeks (PF: 12.73 vs. 6.22, P < 0.020) and 3 months (PF: 25.24 vs.18.95, P < 0.025) and PPS compared to 360 degrees at 6 weeks (ODI: -14.46 vs. -9.30, P < 0.03) and 3 months (ODI: -22.30 vs. -16.78, P < 0.02). At 2 years, 360 degrees had better outcomes: BP: 39.08 versus 29.17 PLF, P < 0.011; and versus 29.13 PPS, P < 0.002; PF: 31.93 versus 23.27 PLF, P < 0.021; and versus 25.29 PPS, P < 0.036. However, these differences were not maintained at 3- and 4-year follow-up, when there were no statistically significant differences between the 3 fusion groups.
conclusionIn patients with DS and associated spinal stenosis, no consistent differences in clinical outcomes were seen among fusion groups over 4 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.