ReviewNorth American Spine Society journal2026
Degenerative lumbar scoliosis with stenosis: how should Cobb angle inform decompression versus fusion? A systematic review.
Review in North American Spine Society journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) with stenosis is a three-dimensional disorder in which the magnitude of the coronal curve informs, but does not, by itself, determine operative planning. Objective: To assess how the preoperative Cobb angle should be interpreted when choosing decompression alone versus fusion in adults with DLS and stenosis. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from 1996 to April 25, 2025. The search in Ovid was created by combining keyword and subject heading terms for adult degenerative scoliosis/adult spinal deformity, lumbar scoliosis, Cobb angle, stenosis, decompression, and fusion. Studies eligible for inclusion were adult surgical cohorts that either provided explicit data on preoperative Cobb angles or included patients based on a preoperative Cobb angle threshold, and that reported at least one outcome measure following surgery for decompression and/or fusion. Cohorts consisting of mixed populations were excluded unless an analysis of the appropriate subset of adults with DLS could be performed independently. Heterogeneous studies were synthesized using narrative methods. Results: Four observational studies met the inclusion criteria. In mild curves, generally below 20°, decompression alone produced acceptable outcomes when stenosis predominated and instability was limited. In the limited comparative evidence, fusion appeared more favorable when curves were larger or when mechanical features such as instability or more substantial deformity were present. Across the included studies, important modifiers beyond Cobb angle included foraminal stenosis, lateral listhesis, disc wedging, and sagittal alignment. Follow-up ranged from approximately 1 to 4.6 years. Conclusions: Cobb angle is a useful decision aid, but not a stand-alone indication. Operative choice in DLS with stenosis should integrate curve magnitude with stenosis pattern, instability, sagittal alignment, symptoms, comorbidity, frailty, and the expected burden of surgery.
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.