Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39256670›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024

Decompression alone or fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis? A systematic review and meta analysis.

Haiyang Cheng, Gan Luo, Dan Xu, Yuqiao Li, Houzhi Yang, Sheng Cao, Tianwei Sun

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Haiyang Cheng *Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Gan Luo *Department of Orthopedics, Chengdu Integrated Traditional Chinese Medicine &Western Medicine Hospital, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu, 610016, China.
Dan XuTianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Yuqiao LiPeking University People's Hospital, Beijing, 100871, China.
Houzhi YangTianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Sheng CaoTianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Tianwei SunTianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China. billsuntw@163.com.

Funding

Tianjin Health Science and Technology Key Discipline Special Project TJWJ2022XK016Tianjin Key Medical Discipline(Specialty) Construction Project TJYXZDXK-064BTianjin Key Project of Applied Basic Research 22JCZDJC00250
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe objective of this systematic review and metaanalysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis.

methodsA comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid Medline databases was conducted to find randomized control trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that compared decompression alone and decompression plus fusion in single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis. Operation time; reoperation; postoperative complications; postoperative Oswestry disability index(ODI) scores and scores related to back and leg pain were collected from eligible studies for meta-analysis.

resultsWe included 3 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohort studies with 6182 patients. The decompression alone group showed less operative time(P < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss(p = 0.000), and no significant difference in postoperative complications was observed in randomized controlled trials(p = 0.428) or cohort studies(p = 0.731). There was no significant difference between the other two groups in reoperation(P = 0.071), postoperative ODI scores and scores related to back and leg pain.

conclusionsIn this study, we found that the decompression alone group performed better in terms of operation time and intraoperative blood loss, and there was no significant difference between the two surgical methods in rate of reoperation and postoperative complications, ODI, low back pain and leg pain. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that decompression alone is not inferior to decompression and fusion in patients with single-level lumbar spinal stenosis with spondylolisthesis.

Indexed as

Decompression, SurgicalLumbar VertebraeSpinal FusionSpinal StenosisSpondylolisthesisHumansOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReoperationTreatment OutcomeDecompressionFusionMeta analysisSpinal stenosisSpondylolisthesis

Identifiers

PMID39256670
PMCPMC11386329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.