ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2025
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.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Spinal fusion is a common treatment for degenerative or isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis (LS) in adult patients, where vertebral slippage can lead to significant neurological impairment. However, debate exists regarding the exact fixation method, as fusion and complication rates may differ via instrumented fusion (IF) or uninstrumented fusion (UIF). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the high-level literature for the fusion and complication rates associated with IF versus UIF to guide decision-making. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis utilized PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science through September 15th, 2024, to assess the fusion and complication rates associated with IF versus UIF for LS. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. The primary outcomes were rates of fusion, reoperation, and complication rates. Statistical analysis included relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) along with trial sequential analysis (TSA) and assessment of fragility index (FI). Results: A total of five RCTs were included in this study out of the 799 articles initially retrieved. Included patients (n = 286; 72.02 % female) had a mean age of 60.97 years and underwent either IF (n = 150) or UIF (n = 136) for LS with a mean follow-up of 2.31 years. Roughly 26.92 % of patients had isthmic LS (n = 77) and 73.08 % of patients had degenerative LS (n = 209) with 98.91 % of patients (n = 182/184) having a grade 1 or 2 LS. Patients who underwent IF had a statistically significant higher rate of fusion as compared to patients who underwent UIF for LS (90.7 % versus 48.5 %; RR: 1.96; 95 % CI: [1.23, 3.13]; p = 0.005) with robust evidence (FI: 11 patients). However, there was no statistically significant difference in reoperation rates (10.4 % versus 2.7 %; RR: 1.05; 95 % CI: [0.97,1.13]; p = 0.264) or total complication rates (7.3 % versus 2.4 %; RR: 0.90; 95 % CI: [0.90, 1.02]; p = 0.228) between patients who underwent IF versus UIF for LS. TSA for all primary outcomes demonstrated a Z-curve that did not cross the required information size, suggesting more research is needed for definitive conclusions on this topic. Qualitatively, two RCTs reported greater operative time (OT) and estimated blood loss (EBL) for IF as compared to UIF for LS. Conclusion: Among adult patients with LS, IF resulted in a robust and statistically significant higher fusion rate as compared to UIF, although more research is needed for definitive conclusions. However, there was no statistically significant difference in reoperation or total complication rates for IF versus UIF for LS.
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.