ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Effectiveness and safety of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical Outcomes of Decompression Versus Decompression With Instrumented Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Secondary to Degenerative Spondylolisthesis:Saudi medical journal · 2026Pooled it
- Decompression alone versus decompression with fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: evaluating the overlapping meta-analyses.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Decompression alone or fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis? A systematic review and meta analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Elective Lumbar Decompression With Fusion Is Associated With Increased Mortality Compared With Decompression Alone: A National Propensity-Matched Analysis of Aging Cohorts.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Decompression Alone vs Decompression and Fusion: Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Decompression alone or with fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (Nordsten-DS): five year follow-up of a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- Pain improvement and reoperation rate after full-endoscopic decompression for lateral recess stenosis: a 10-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 · 2023Article
- Longitudinal Comparative Analysis of Complications and Subsequent Interventions Following Stand-Alone Interspinous Spacers, Open Decompression, or Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis.Advances in therapy · 2023Article
- Letter to the editor regarding "decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis": when do we have enough evidence?Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There have been lingering controversies reported decompression and plus fusion. And the relative safety of fusion in addition to standard decompression remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of decompression alone or combined with fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for relevant literature from their inception to 28th December 2021. We identified the eligible studies based on the PICOS principles, populations (LSS with DS), interventions (decompression alone), controls (decompression combined with fusion), outcomes [overall reoperation rate, complications, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), operative time, the amount of blood lost, length of stay (LOS), and visual analog scales (VAS)], study design (cohort studies). Quality assessment for individual study was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: In all, 12 articles involving a total of 14,693 patients were finally included in the study, the majority of patients underwent decompression alone (DA group: n=11,598) and the rest underwent decompression associated with fusion (FU group: n=3,095). The quality of most of the included studies was regarded as high quality. The results indicated that the FU group had a higher rate of complication [relative risk (RR): 1.770, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.485 to 2.110], longer operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD): 51.037, 95% CI: 13.743 to 88.330], and increased blood loss (WMD: 258.354, 95% CI: 150.468 to 366.239) than the DA group (all P<0.05), with no significant differences for overall reoperation rate (RR: 0.879, 95% CI: 0.432 to 1.786), ODI (WMD: -2.569, 95% CI: -6.548 to 1.409), LOS (WMD: 3.838, 95% CI: -2.172 to 9.848), and VAS found between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusions: In patients with LSS + DS, the effectiveness and safety of decompression alone may be superior to decompression plus fusion in terms of complication rate, operative time, and the amount of bleeding. However, more high-quality literature is needed in the future to confirm the best treatment choice for patients with LSS + DS.
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.