Observational studyMedicine2016
Sagittal spinopelvic parameters in 2-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: A retrospective study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Preoperative Sagittal Malalignment on Clinical Outcomes in Short-Segment Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive vs. microscopic discectomy for adolescent lumbar disc herniation: a comparative study of clinical and spinopelvic outcomes.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Pregnancy-Related Spinal Biomechanics: A Review of Low Back Pain and Degenerative Spine Disease.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The triadic relationship between spinal posture, loading, and degeneration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Article
- The L3 Flexion Angle Predicts Failure of Non-Operative Management in Patients with Tandem Spondylolithesis.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Bilateral L5 pedicle fracture with L5-S1 spondylolisthesis after single-level L4-5 posterior lumbar interbody fusion: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2023Article
- Efficacy of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of double-level lumbar spondylolisthesis with sagittal imbalance.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Does the Number of Levels Fused Affect Spinopelvic Parameters and Clinical Outcomes Following Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion for Low-Grade Spondylolisthesis?Global spine journal · 2021Article
- Sagittal reconstruction of lumbosacral contiguous double-level spondylolytic spondylolisthesis: a comparison of double-level and single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2019Article
- Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Current Concepts and New Evidence.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2017Review
- Evaluation of spinopelvic parameters in lumbar prolapsed intervertebral disc.The Indian journal of radiology & imagingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of our study is to evaluate sagittal parameters in 2-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) (TLDS).A total of 15 patients with TLDS, 40 patients with single-level DS (SLDS), and 30 normal volunteers as control were included in our study. All subjects performed on full spine X-ray. Two categorized data were analyzed: patient characteristics-age, sex, body mass index, radiographic parameters-pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), PI-LL, Cobb between the fifth thoracic vertebral and 12th thoracic vertebral (T5-T12), sagittal vertical axis (SVA) Cobb angle of spondylolisthesis level (CSL), ratio of PT to SS (PT/SS), CSL/LL, variation trend of SS over PI, and LL over PI.The PI (73.1° vs 52.9°), SS (50.8° vs 32.2°), LL (53.1° vs 46.9°), SVA (66.1 vs 22.0 mm), PI-LL (20.0° vs 6.0°), and CSL (23.6° vs 20.0°) in TLDS were significantly larger than these in SLDS. The PI (73.1° vs 40.6°), PT (22.3° vs 17.1°), SS (50.8° vs 23.5°), LL (53.1° vs 32.5°), PI-LL (20.0° vs 8.1°), and SVA (66.1 vs 17.0 mm) in TLDS were significantly larger than those in the normal group (NG). The PI (52.9° vs 40.6°), PT (21.0° vs 17.1°), SS (32.2° vs 23.5°), LL (46.9° vs 32.5°), and SVA (22.0 vs 17.0 mm) in SLDS were significantly higher than those in NG. However, PT/SS (44.0%), LL over PI (y = 0.39x + 24.25), SS over PI (y = 10.79 + 0.55x) were lower in TLDS than these in SLDS (63.8%, y = 0.41x + 25, y = 0.65x - 2.09, respectively), and the similar tend between SLDS and NG (74.0%, y = 0.49x + 13.09, y = 0.67x - 3.9, respectively).Our results showed that 2-level lumbar DS, which was caused by multiple-factors, has a severe sagittal imbalance, but single-level has not any. When we plan for surgical selection for 2-level lumbar DS, global sagittal balance must be considered.
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.