SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2014
The comparison of instrumented and non-instrumented fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing fusion and complication rates after instrumented versus uninstrumented fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review and meta analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Review
- 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
- Biomechanical feasibility of semi-rigid stabilization and semi-rigid lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Physician-Related Variability in the Outcomes of an Invasive Treatment for Neck and Back Pain: A Multi-Level Analysis of Data Gathered in Routine Clinical Practice.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Article
- Management of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: an evidence-based review.EFORT open reviews · 2016Review
- A review: Reduced reoperation rate for multilevel lumbar laminectomies with noninstrumented versus instrumented fusions.Surgical neurology international · 2016Article
- Low reoperation rate following 336 multilevel lumbar laminectomies with noninstrumented fusions.Surgical neurology international · 2016Article
- The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical research" articles in the European Spine Journal 2014.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 · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis meta-analysis compared whether fusion with or without instrumentation to treat this disease differed with respect to patient-centered outcomes.
methodsMedline, Cochrane, EMBASE, Google Scholar data bases were searched for randomized control trials that investigated patients with severe chronic lower back pain resulting from localized lumbar or lumbosacral instability caused by either isthmic spondylolisthesis or degenerative spondylolisthesis. Included randomized studies reported quantitative outcomes for low back pain and functional recovery. The primary outcome was the improvement of function and the secondary outcomes were the improvement of pain, patients' satisfactory level, and the fusion rate.
resultsA significantly lower function change in patients with instrumented compared with non-instrumented from baseline (pooled standardized mean difference; -1.02 (95% CI -1.76 to -0.27); Z -2.67; (P = 0.008)]. There was no significant pain change for patients with instrumented compared with that of non-instrumented from baseline [pooled standardized mean difference; -0.07 (95% CI -1.25 to 1.12); Z -0.11; (P = 0.913)]. There was no significant difference in satisfactory level for patients with instrumented compared with that of non-instrumented [pooled OR; 2.36 (95% CI 0.91-6.11); Z 1.76; (P = 0.078)]. There was significantly higher fusion rate for patients with instrumented compared with that of non-instrumented [pooled OR; 3.28 (95% CI 2.22-4.85); Z 5.96; (P < 0.001)].
conclusionsThis meta-analysis found that inclusion of fusion surgery with instrumentation provided no benefit as evaluated by patient-reported outcomes in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable.
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.