Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40717178›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025

Posterior lumbar fusion with and without interbody fusion in isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kayoumars Azizpour, Sverre J Broekman, Wilco C Peul, Carmen L A Vleggeert-Lankamp

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Kayoumars AzizpourDepartment of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC, Leiden, 0031 71 5262109, The Netherlands. k.azizpour@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7520-226X
Sverre J BroekmanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC, Leiden, 0031 71 5262109, The Netherlands.
Wilco C PeulDepartment of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC, Leiden, 0031 71 5262109, The Netherlands.
Carmen L A Vleggeert-LankampDepartment of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC, Leiden, 0031 71 5262109, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIsthmic spondylolisthesis is caused by a lesion in the pars articularis resulting in forward slippage of the vertebral segment relative to the caudal vertebral segment. Patients can develop neurogenic claudication or radiculopathy in case degeneration progresses. Nerve decompression is usually accompanied by spondylodesis: two frequently performed procedures are posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

methodsStudies from four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, COCHRANE Library and Emcare) were included that compared clinical outcomes of posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. For Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) pooled point estimate and the 95% confidence interval (CIs) was derived using the random-effects model.

resultsFourteen studies met the inclusion criteria of which four were randomized controlled trials (RCT), six were retrospective, and four were prospective cohort studies (two with historical control). The pooled results for ODI yielded no difference between PLF and PLIF with an estimated pooled mean difference of -0.29 (95% CI [-0.83, 0.26], P = 0.45). A significant difference in favour of PLIF was demonstrated regarding SF-36 (1/3 studies) and VAS back pain (1/7 studies). None of the studies reporting Roland Disability Scores, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) leg pain and (adjusted) Japanese Orthopedic Association score displayed a significant difference. Fusion rate was reported in favour of PLIF (2/6 studies).

conclusionsOur results suggest that both PLF and PLIF are adequate options for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis. However, included studies gave insufficient data on possible confounding factors like age, degeneration status, grade of slippage, disc height, smoking, and facet joint condition. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to support either PLF or PLIF as the best treatment option. Large multicentre RCTs with proper adjustment for confounding factors and clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria should determine whether the two treatment modalities are indeed comparable. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022338983. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeSpinal FusionSpondylolisthesisDecompression, SurgicalHumansTreatment OutcomeDecompressionFusionIsthmicLaminectomySpineSpondylodesisSpondylolisthesisSpondylolytic

Identifiers

PMID40717178
PMCPMC12301273

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.