OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of reduction and fusion with in situ fusion in the management of patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).
METHODS: The systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant studies were identified from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria were: (1) comparative studies of reduction and fusion versus in situ fusion for DLS patients, (2) outcomes reported as VAS/NRS, ODI, JOA score, operating time, blood loss, complication rate, fusion rate, or reoperation rate, (3) randomized controlled trials and observational studies published in English from the inception of the databases to January 2023. The exclusion criteria included: (1) reviews, case series, case reports, letters, and conference reports, (2) in vitro biomechanical studies and computational modeling studies, (3) no report on study outcomes. The risk of bias 2 (RoB2) tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was conducted to assess the risk of bias of RCTs and observational studies, respectively.
RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 704 patients were included (375 reduction and fusion, 329 in situ fusion). Operating time was significantly longer in the reduction and fusion group compared to in situ fusion group (weighted mean difference 7.20; 95% confidence interval 0.19, 14.21; P = 0.04). No additional significant intergroup differences were noted in terms of other outcomes analyzed.
CONCLUSIONS: While the reduction and fusion group demonstrated a statistically longer operating time compared to the in situ fusion group, the clinical significance of this difference was minimal. The findings suggest no substantial superiority of lumbar fusion with reduction over without reduction for the management of DLS.

BACKGROUND: Spinopelvic parameter may result in the development of degenerative spondylolisthesis. However, previous studies show conflicting results; some found a significant relationship of some of these parameters with degenerative spondylolisthesis, while others did not. Previously, there was no meta-analysis regarding the association between spinopelvic alignment and degenerative spondylolisthesis. This meta-analysis aims to determine the association between spinopelvic alignment and degenerative spondylolisthesis.
METHODS: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are based on the selected item reporting method for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA). A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Methodological quality is based on the cross-sectional checklist of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) quality check methodology and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Statistical analysis was performed using Rev-Man 5.3. Subgroup analyses were performed based on ethnicity and study design to ascertain racial relations and heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of 3236 articles were obtained. Of these, we found that pelvic incidence (mean difference [MD] = 11.94 [1.81-22.08], P = 0.02), pelvic tilt (MD = 4.47 [0.81-8.14]), P = 0.02), and age (MD = 11.94 [1.81-22.08], P = 0.02) were associated with the development of degenerative spondylolisthesis.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis proves that pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and age are associated with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

The relationship between various factors predisposing to the formation of spondylolisthesis, including degenerative spondylolisthesis, has been analyzed by many authors. However, not all observations are consistent. In this review, we identified factors whose impact on the prevalence of spondylolisthesis was most often mentioned in the literature. These included gender, age, bone mineral density, ethnic origin, and oophorectomy. The results were inclusive in terms of physical activity, pregnancy status, and use of hormone replacement therapy. Associations between diabetes and smoking were very poorly marked. The literature so far has identified a number of factors significantly affecting the incidence of degenerative spondylolisthesis. These include age, gender, body weight, ethnic origin, bone mineral density, and hormonal balance. Radiological parameters, which include iliac crest, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, sacral slope, and lumbar lordosis, may also be of great importance for assessing changes in the occurrence and progression. However, the authors do not agree on the real significance of individual factors. The aim of this review was to identify the factors predisposing to the formation of degenerative spondylolisthesis, the importance of which has been suggested in the current literature. The systematization of knowledge in this field can allow a more accurate adjustment of the treatment plan for each patient affected by this condition.

OBJECTIVE: To review existing classification systems for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), propose a novel classification designed to better address clinically relevant radiographic and clinical features of disease, and determine the inter- and intraobserver reliability of this new system for classifying DS.
METHODS: The proposed classification system includes four components: 1) segmental dynamic instability, 2) location of spinal stenosis, 3) sagittal alignment, and 4) primary clinical presentation. To establish the reliability of this system, 12 observers graded 10 premarked test cases twice each. Kappa values were calculated to assess the inter- and intraobserver reliability for each of the four components separately.
RESULTS: Interobserver reliability for dynamic instability, location of stenosis, sagittal alignment, and clinical presentation was 0.94, 0.80, 0.87, and 1.00, respectively. Intraobserver reliability for dynamic instability, location of stenosis, sagittal alignment, and clinical presentation were 0.91, 0.88, 0.87, and 0.97, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The UCSF DS classification system provides a novel framework for assessing DS based on radiographic and clinical parameters with established implications for surgical treatment. The almost perfect interobserver and intraobserver reliability observed for all components of this system demonstrates that it is simple and easy to use. In clinical practice, this classification may allow subclassification of similar patients into groups that may benefit from distinct treatment strategies, leading to the development of algorithms to help guide selection of an optimal surgical approach. Future work will focus on the clinical validation of this system, with the goal of providing for more evidence-based, standardized approaches to treatment and improved outcomes for patients with DS.

BACKGROUND: Degenerative spondylolisthesis is a disease characterized by the displacement of a vertebra above the underlying vertebra. Lumbar arthrodesis is currently the most frequently performed surgical option for treatment due to the use of various approaches and techniques. The disease is characterized by low back pain, a clinical and public health problem, which in addition to having a socio-economic burden, severely affects functional status, quality of life (QoL), activity impairment, and health services. The study aims to investigate the benefits, in terms of pain, disability, andQoL, of lumbar arthrodesis surgery in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, at the latest follow-up.
METHODS: A systematic literature review registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022379242), was conducted in the databases of: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The key words used were as follows: \"spondylolisthesis\", \"arthrodesis\", \"degenerative\", \"quality of life\", \"pain\", \"patient reported outcome\", and \"disability\".
RESULTS: A total of 26 articles were included. Significant differences were found between the preoperative and postoperative evaluation of the outcomes considered, in particular: pain (MD = -6.74; SD = 2.83; 95% CI: -8.01 to -5.46), low back pain (MD = -3.35; SD = 3.27; 95% CI: -3.61 to -3.10), lower limb pain (MD = -3.81; SD = 3.80; 95% CI: -4.10 to -3.51), disability (MD = -23.75; SD = 19.68; 95% CI: -25.26 to -22.23) and QoL (MD = 0.21; SD = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.23).
CONCLUSIONS: The results show significant improvement in all measured variables, demonstrating that there are different surgical treatments to cure degenerative spondylolisthesis. However, residual pain impacting the QoL remains, regardless of the technique used. Therefore, the development of personalized pain management for patients with residual chronic pain is indicated.

The optimal treatment algorithm for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis has not been clarified. Part of the reason for this is that the natural history of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) has not been sufficiently studied. Comprehension of the natural history is essential for surgical decision making. We aimed to determine 1) the proportion of patients that develop de novo DS during follow-up; and 2) the proportion of patients with progression of preexistent DS by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Ovid, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception through April 2022. Demographic values of the study populations, grade of slip, rate of slippage before and after the follow-up period, and percentage of patients with slip in the populations at baseline and after follow-up were the extracted parameters.
Of the 1909 screened records, eventually 10 studies were included. Of these studies, 5 reported the development of de novo DS and 9 reported on the progression of preexistent DS. Proportions of patients developing de novo DS ranged from 12% to 20% over a period ranging from 4 to 25 years. The proportion of patients with progression of DS ranged from 12% to 34% over a period ranging from 4 to 25 years.
Systematic review and metanalysis of DS on the basis of radiologic parameters revealed both an increasing incidence over time and an increasing progression of the slip rate in up to a third of the patients older than 25 years, which is important for counseling patients and surgical decision making. Importantly, two thirds of patients did not experience slip progression.

BACKGROUND: The optimum surgical intervention for elderly patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and low-grade degenerative-spondylolisthesis (LGDS) has been extensively debated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised-controlled-trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of decompression-alone against the gold-standard approach of decompression-with-fusion (D + F) in elderly patients with LSS and LGDS.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on published databases from inception to October-2021. English-language RCTs of elderly patients (mean age over-65) with LSS and LGDS, who had undergone DA or D + F were included. The quality and weight of evidence was assessed, and a meta-analysis performed.
RESULTS: Six RCTs (n = 531; mean age: 66.2 years; 57.8% female) were included. There was no difference in visual-analogue-scale (VAS) scores of back-pain (BP) or leg-pain (LP) at mean follow-up of 27.4 months between both DA and D + F groups (BP: mean-difference (MD)0.24, 95%CI: -0.38-0.85; LP MD:0.39, 95%CI: -0.34-1.11). No difference in disability, measured by Oswestry-Disability-Index scores, was found between both groups (MD:0.50, 95%CI: -3.31-4.31). However, patients in DA group had less hospital complications and fewer adverse events (total-surgical-complications OR:0.57, 95%CI: 0.36-0.90), despite a higher rate of worsening DS (OR:3.49, 95%CI: 1.05-11.65). No difference in BP or LP was found in subgroup-analysis of open-laminectomy compared to posterolateral-fusion (PLF) (BP: MD: -0.24, 95%CI: -1.80-1.32; LP MD:0.80, 95%CI: -0.95-2.55).
CONCLUSIONS: DA is not inferior to D + F in elderly patients with LSS and LGDS. DA carries a lower risk of hospital complications and fewer adverse events, however, surgeons should weigh these findings with the increased risk of DS progressing post-operatively.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), which often occurs concurrently with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), is a common disease in the elderly population, affecting the quality of life of aged people significantly. Notwithstanding the frequently good effect of conservative therapy on LSS, a minority of the patients ultimately require surgery. Surgery for LSS aims to decompress the narrowed spinal canals with preservation of spinal stability. Traditional open surgery, either pure decompression or decompression with fusion, was considered effective for the treatment of LSS with or without DS. However, the long-term clinical outcomes of traditional open surgery are still unclear. Moreover, the disadvantages of conventional open surgery are extensive, examples including tissue injuries or secondary instability, with limited outcomes and significant reoperation rates. With the development and improvement of surgical tools, various minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) methods, including indirect decompression techniques of interspinous process devices (IPDs) and direct decompression techniques such as microscopic spine surgery or endoscopic spine surgery (ESS), have been updated with enhancement. IPDs, such as Superion devices, were reported to behave with comparable physical function, disability, and symptoms outcomes to laminectomy decompression. As an emerging technique of MISS, ESS has beneficial hallmarks including minimal tissue injuries, reduced complication rates, and shortened recovery periods, thus gaining popularity in recent years. ESS can be classified in terms of endoscopic hallmarks and approaches. Predictably, with the continuous development and gradual maturity, MISS is expected to replace traditional open surgery widely in the surgical treatment of LSS associated with DS in the future.

A few meta-analyses have compared conventional pedicle screws (PS) with cortical bone trajectory-pedicle screws (cortical screw [CS]) in posterior lumbar fusion surgery. However, these studies did not control for diagnosis, which has been shown to impact surgical outcomes.
To compare PS with CS as a posterior fixation technique in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
We searched the Cochrane, Embase, and Medline databases for articles that compared postoperative outcomes between PS and CS for posterior stabilization in PLIF for DS with November 11, 2020, as the publication cutoff. The differences in primary and secondary outcome measures were calculated and analyzed for significance (p<.05). All the reported means were pooled.
A total of 916 publications were assessed; 5 studies met all the study criteria. The fusion rates between PS and CS groups were not significantly different (p=.41). Blood loss and operative time were significantly less in the CS group than the PS group (p=.04 and 0.02, respectively), but the length of stay was not significantly different (p=.08). The total complication rate was significantly less in CS group than that in PS group (p=.002). The rates of adjacent segment pathology (ASP) and operation for ASP in the CS group were significantly less than the PS group (p=.03 and .04, respectively).
Though CS and PS appear to have similar 1-year fusion rates and length of stay, there appears to lower blood loss and operative time with CS. Though encouraging, these findings were based on low-quality evidence from a small number of retrospective studies that are prone to bias.

UNASSIGNED: To evaluate charges, expenses, reimbursement, and hospital margins with noninstrumented posterolateral fusion in situ (PLF), posterolateral fusion with pedicle screws (PPS), and PPS with interbody device (PLIF) in degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective chart review was performed from 2010 to 2014 based on ICD-9 diagnoses of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis in patients undergoing single-level fusions. All charges, expenses, reimbursement, and margins were obtained through financial auditing. A multivariate linear regression model was used to compare demographics, charges, etc. A 1-way analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc analysis was used to analyze reimbursements and margins based upon insurances.
UNASSIGNED: Two hundred thirty-three patients met inclusion criteria. The overall charges and expenses for PLF were significantly less compared to both types of instrumented fusions (P < .0001). Medicare and private insurance were the most common insurance types; Medicare and private insurance mean reimbursements for PLF were $36,903 and $47,086, respectively; for PPS, $37,450 and $53,851, and for PLIF $40,171 and $51,640. Hospital margins for PPS and PLIF in Medicaid patients were negative (-$3,702 and -$6,456). Hospital margins were largest for both worker\'s compensation and private insurance patients in all fusion groups. Hospital margins with Medicare for PLF, PPS, and PLIF were $24,347, $19,205, and $23,046, respectively. Hospital margins for private insurance for PLF, PPS, and PLIF were $37,569, $36,834, and $33,134, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: As more instrumentation is used, the more it costs both the hospital and the insurance companies; hospital margins did not increase correspondingly.
UNASSIGNED: Improved understanding of related costs and margins associated with lumbar fusions to help transition to more cost effective spine centers.