SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Single level versus multi-level lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Research progress on sagittal balance and minimal clinically important difference after two-level lumbar spondylolisthesis surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDegenerative spondylolisthesis affects approximately 39 million patients worldwide. While consensus supports decompression with fusion for single-level pathology, optimal surgical approaches for multi-level disease remain disputed. Despite the frequency of this clinical presentation, evidence comparing outcomes between Single-Level versus Multi-Level interbody fusion procedures is surprisingly scarce. This study aims to determine how the level of interbody fusion extent impacts outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis.
methodsOur systematic review methodology involved comprehensive database searches (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Library) from inception through April 2025. Two independent reviewers performed article screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Statistical analyses used R software (v4.4.2), with outcomes reported as risk ratios for categorical variables and mean differences for continuous measures (95% CI). The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
resultsOur meta-analysis evaluated 10 studies (N = 1430 patients; 971 Single-Level, 366 Double-Level, 198 Multi-Level fusions). Single-Level procedures demonstrated 41% lower revision rates (RR = 0.59 [0.40-0.86], p = 0.007). Operative advantages included reduced surgical time (-60.73 min [- 80.89 to - 40.57], p < 0.001), blood loss (-286.99mL [- 496.71 to - 77.27], p = 0.007), and hospitalization (-1.22 days [- 2.09 to - 0.34], p = 0.006). Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores showed borderline improvement (-3.90 [- 7.89 to 0.10], p = 0.06). Screw loosening decreased by 84% (RR = 0.16 [0.08-0.34], p < 0.001). We observed no significant differences in lumbar lordosis (-0.01 [- 1.75 to 1.72], p = 0.99), infection rates (RR = 0.49 [0.19-1.25], p = 0.13), adjacent segment deterioration, vascular injuries, or dural tears. The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low, and high heterogeneity was observed in perioperative outcomes.
conclusionsSingle-level fusion may offer a more favorable perioperative profile than double- or multi-level constructs, including lower revision risk, shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, shorter hospitalization, and fewer screw loosening events in pooled analyses. However, complications did not differ significantly between groups. Given substantial heterogeneity for perioperative outcomes and generally low to very low certainty of evidence, these findings should be interpreted cautiously and individualized to patient pathology and surgical context.
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.