Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38974406›Full record

ReviewJB & JS open access

Rate of Reoperation Following Decompression-Only Procedure for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review of Literature.

Sathish Muthu, Stipe Ćorluka, Zorica Buser, James G Malcolm, Zhuojing Luo, Prajwal Gollahalli Shivashankar, Luca Ambrosio, Cristiana Griffoni, Andreas K Demetriades, Stjepan Ivandić and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Learning curve insights in Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic (UBE) spinal procedures: proficiency cutoffs and the impact on efficiency and complications.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
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Sathish MuthuDepartment of Spine Surgery, Orthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7143-4354
Stipe ĆorlukaSpinal Surgery Division, Traumatology Department, University Hospital Centre Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5732-1150
Zorica BuserDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5680-0643
James G MalcolmDepartment of Neurosurgery, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7545-3069
Zhuojing LuoDepartment of Orthopeadic Surgery, Xijing Hospital, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0671-8553
Prajwal Gollahalli ShivashankarDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Bangalore Hospital, Karnataka, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7345-2321
Luca AmbrosioDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2424-1274
Cristiana GriffoniDepartment of Spine Surgery, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8344-7534
Andreas K DemetriadesDepartment of Neurosurgery, Edinburgh Spinal Surgery Outcome Studies Group, Royal Infirmary Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2004-9448
Stjepan IvandićSpinal Surgery Division, Traumatology Department, University Hospital Centre Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3682-617X
Yabin WuResearch Department, AO Spine, AO Foundation, Davos, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1836-7674
Jeffrey WangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6297-7410
Hans-Jorg MeiselDepartment of Neurosurgery, Bergmannstrost Hospital, Halle, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3838-1489
Tim Sangwook YoonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1010-6952

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with decompression-only procedure has been performed for its added benefit of a shorter duration of surgery, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. However, reported failure rates for decompression-only procedures vary depending on the methods utilized for decompression. Hence, we aim to identify the failure rates of individual methods of decompression-only procedures performed for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods: An independent systematic review of 4 scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, Web of Science) was performed to identify relevant articles as per the preferred reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. Studies reporting on failure rates defined by reoperation at the index level following decompression-only procedure for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were included for analysis. Studies were appraised using ROBINS tool of Cochrane, and analysis was performed using the Open Meta[Analyst] software. Results: The overall failure rate of decompression-only procedure was 9.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] [6.5-11.7]). Furthermore, open decompression had failure rate of 10.9% (95% CI [6.0-15.8]), while microendoscopic decompression had failure rate of 6.7% (95% CI [2.9-10.6]). The failure rate gradually increased from 6.9% (95% CI [2.0-11.7]) at 1 year to 7% (95% CI [3.6-10.3]), 11.7% (95% CI [4.5-18.9]), and 11.7% (95% CI [6.6-16.7]) at 2, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Single level decompression had a failure rate of 9.6% (95% CI [6.3-12.9]), while multilevel decompression recorded a failure rate of 8.7% (95% CI [5.6-11.7]). Conclusion: High-quality evidence on the decompression-only procedure for degenerative spondylolisthesis is limited. The decompression-only procedure had an overall failure rate of 9.1% without significant differences between the decompression techniques. Level of Evidence: Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifiers

PMID38974406
PMCPMC11221853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.