ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Research progress on sagittal balance and minimal clinically important difference after two-level lumbar spondylolisthesis surgery.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sagittal alignment influences functional recovery after surgery for two-level lumbar spondylolisthesis, yet evidence specific to this population remains limited. This review synthesizes current findings on postoperative changes in lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL), and examines their associations with patient-reported outcomes. Available studies indicate that two-level fusion generally produces greater LL correction than single-level fusion, although restoration of global sagittal balance and ideal PI-LL matching is less consistent. Improvements in LL and PI-LL are associated with better Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and pain outcomes, and reported thresholds such as LL improvement of at least 8° and postoperative PI-LL of 10° or less may help predict achievement of the ODI minimal clinically important difference (MCID). These values should be interpreted as radiographic predictors of clinically meaningful improvement rather than MCID thresholds for the radiographic parameters themselves. Current evidence is constrained by heterogeneous study designs, small retrospective cohorts, inconsistent definitions, and limited two-level subgroup analyses. Prospective multicentre studies using standardized radiographic assessment, validated patient-reported anchors, and stratification by age, fusion level, and pelvic morphology are needed to define reliable surgical correction targets.
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.