ArticleBrain & spine2026
Does adding an interbody cage in L4-L5 posterolateral fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis improve clinical outcome?
Article in Brain & spine, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As the population ages, L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis is increasingly common. Posterolateral fusion was long standard; interbody cages are widely used for perceived higher fusion rates. Research question: Does adding an interbody cage to posterolateral fusion improve outcomes or reduce complications in elderly patients with grade I spondylolisthesis and severe stenosis? Materials and methods: We retrospectively studied 319 adults aged 60-85 who underwent single-level L4-L5 fusion (2011-2018) after failed conservative care. Patients received posterior lumbar fusion (PLIF, n = 155) or posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF, n = 164). Primary outcomes were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) change and complications over a median five-year follow-up; secondary outcomes were operative time, hospital stay, and transfusions. Multivariable analyses adjusted for age, sex, BMI, year of surgery, and sagittal alignment. Results: Functional improvement was similar (median ODI reduction ≈22 points; p = 0.97), and implant-related revision and revision-free survival did not differ. Cage use increased overall complications (24.5 % vs 7.9 %), prolonged surgery (125 vs 95 min) and hospital stay (4 vs 3 days), and raised transfusions (9.7 % vs 1.8 %), dural tears (11.6 % vs 2.4 %), and radicular deficits (6.5 % vs 1.2 %). The association between cage use and complications persisted after adjustment. Conclusion: In this elderly, low-grade L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis cohort, adding a posterior interbody cage to instrumented posterolateral fusion did not improve 5-year disability but was associated with higher peri-operative morbidity and greater resource use.
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.