UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of reduction vs. arthrodesis in situ with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
UNASSIGNED: A comprehensive literature search was implemented in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomized or non-randomized controlled trials that were published until July 2023 that compared reduction vs. arthrodesis in situ techniques with minimally invasive or open-TLIF for low-grade spondylolisthesis were selected. The quality of the included studies was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Data were extracted according to the predefined outcome measures, including operation time and intraoperative blood loss; short- and long-time follow-up of visual analog scale (VAS) back pain (VAS-BP) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); slippage and segmental lordosis; and the complication and fusion rate.
UNASSIGNED: Five studies (n = 495 patients) were finally included. All of them were retrospective cohort studies with Evidence Level II. The pooled data revealed that both techniques had similar patient-reported outcomes (VAS, ODI, and good and excellent rate) during short- and long-term follow-up. In addition, no significant differences were observed in the fusion and complication rates. However, although the reduction group did achieve better slippage correction, it was associated with increased operation time and intraoperative blood loss compared with the in situ arthrodesis group.
UNASSIGNED: Based on the available evidence, intraoperative reduction does not result in better clinical outcomes in low-grade spondylolisthesis after minimally invasive or open-TLIF, and the in situ arthrodesis technique could be an alternative.

BACKGROUND: Interventional treatment options for the lumbar degenerative spine have undergone a significant amount of innovation over the last decade. As new technologies emerge, along with the surgical specialty expansion, there is no manuscript that utilizes a review of surgical treatments with evidence rankings from multiple specialties, namely, the interventional pain and spine communities. Through the Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS), the purpose of this manuscript is to provide a balanced evidence review of available surgical treatments.
METHODS: The PSPS Research Committee created a working group that performed a comprehensive literature search on available surgical technologies for the treatment of the degenerative spine, utilizing the ranking assessment based on USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Taskforce) and NASS (North American Spine Society) criteria.
RESULTS: The surgical treatments were separated based on disease process, including treatments for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.
CONCLUSIONS: There is emerging and significant evidence to support multiple approaches to treat the symptomatic lumbar degenerative spine. As new technologies become available, training, education, credentialing, and peer review are essential for optimizing patient safety and successful outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS) is defined as the anterior translation of one lumbar vertebra relative to the next caudal segment as a result of a unilateral or bilateral fracture of the pars interarticularis. These fractures are interchangeably known as \"pars defects\" or \"spondylolysis.\" Many risk factors have been proposed to explain the progression of a spondylolytic defect to IS, however, none are validated.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review provides an overview of various radiological and imaging parameters that can help predict the risk of progression of a spondylolytic defect into IS.
METHODS: Systematic review.
METHODS: Medline, Embase and Cochrane online database were searched. The various correlations between imaging features with observed spondylolisthesis prevalence or severity or spondylolysis rates of spondylolisthesis were evaluated to provide a list of imaging risk factors to predict IS. Significance of the correlations in the original article was recorded to enable comparison of the collected evidence of separate image features.
RESULTS: All searches combined generated a total of 431 results of which 26 articles were included into this study. Of the 22 potential risk factors identified, 5 were found to be statistically insignificant, 8 were found to be significant and 9 had mixed results. The following features were found to be significant risk factors in at least on study: disc degeneration, transverse process width, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, lumbar lordosis, lumbar index, thoracic kyphosis, facet joint angle above the level of defect, facet joint degeneration, facet tropism, multifidus size, lateral erector spinae size, mesenteric fat thickness, subcutaneous fat thickness and soft tissue calcification.
CONCLUSIONS: Our research suggests that only disc degeneration had moderately strong evidence with consistent significant associations with development of IS in patients with spondylolysis. Transverse process width, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope, lumbar lordosis, lumbar index, thoracic kyphosis, facet joint angle above the level of defect, facet joint degeneration, facet tropism, multifidus size, lateral erector spinae size, mesenteric fat thickness, subcutaneous fat thickness and soft tissue calcification had some evidence. All other radiological factors had weak evidence. The results of this study can be used to improve early clinical decision making for patients with spondylolysis.

BACKGROUND: Consensus on the various interventions for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) remains unclear.
METHODS: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and major scientific websites until 01 November 2023, to screen eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the treatment of DLS. The seven most common DLS interventions [nonsurgical (NS), decompression only (DO), decompression plus fusion without internal fixation (DF), decompression plus fusion with internal fixation (DFI), endoscopic decompression plus fusion (EDF), endoscopic decompression (ED), and circumferential fusion (360F)] were compared. The primary (pain and disability) and secondary (complications, reoperation rate, operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction) outcomes were analyzed.
RESULTS: Data involving 3273 patients in 16 RCTs comparing the efficacy of different interventions for DLS were reported. In terms of improving patient pain and dysfunction, there was a significant difference between surgical and NS. EDF showed the greatest improvement in short-term and long-term dysfunction (probability, 7.1 and 21.0%). Moreover, EDF had a higher complication rate (probability 70.8%), lower reoperation rate (probability, 20.2%), and caused greater blood loss (probability, 82.5%) than other surgical interventions. Endoscopic surgery had the shortest hospitalization time (EDF: probability, 42.6%; ED: probability, 3.9%). DF and DFI had the highest satisfaction scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high complication rate of EDF, its advantages include improvement in pain, lower reoperation rate, and shorter hospitalization duration. Therefore, EDF may be a good option for patients with DLS as a less invasive surgical approach.

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the optimal surgical fusion approach for lumbar spondylolisthesis, to provide the latest and most reliable evidence for future clinical practice.
A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Ovid-Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases was conducted from inception to September 1, 2023, to identify relevant records. Two independent reviewers performed the literature screening, data extraction, and assessment of study quality.
Fifteen randomized controlled trials involving 892 patients met the inclusion criteria. The network evidence plot showed that posterolateral fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) were the most used fusion techniques. The network meta-analysis results revealed that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) had a significantly greater improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) compared to endoscopic-TLIF, while PLIF had a significantly better fusion effect than posterolateral fusion. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed between other fusion surgeries in terms of improving ODI, fusion rate, complications, or the improvement of visual analog scale-low back pain. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve results indicated that MIS-TLIF had the greatest potential for improving ODI, visual analog scale-low back pain, and complications, while PLIF had the greatest potential for increasing fusion rates. However, the existing selection bias, measurement bias, reporting bias, and publication bias may have reduced the reliability of the meta-analysis results.
Among the various fusion surgeries for lumbar spondylolisthesis, MIS-TLIF appears to provide the greatest benefit to patients. However, more high-quality, large-scale studies are needed to further investigate the treatment efficacy of different fusion surgeries for lumbar spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the management of lumbar spinal fractures and return to play (RTP) criteria is an essential component of care for adult athletes. Appropriate management of lumbar spinal fractures must balance minimizing time away from physical activity while also minimizing risk of reinjury. The purpose of this review is to summarize current recommendations on lumbar spinal fracture management and RTP guidelines and to provide expert opinion on areas of discrepancy in the field.
RESULTS: There is a paucity of high-level evidence on the management and return to play criteria for adult lumbar spine fractures in athletes. Much of the data and recommendations are based on expert opinion and studies in pediatric or osteoporotic patients, which may not be applicable to adult athletes. These data presented here may be used to aid patient-physician conversations and provide guidance on expectations for patients, coaches, and athletic trainers. In general, we recommend that patients be free of lumbar pain, neurologically intact, and have full strength and motion of the lumbar spine and lower extremities before returning to play. Adequate protective equipment is recommended to be worn at all times during practice and play.

OBJECTIVE: Report the rate and severity of degenerative disc disease (DDD) in non-surgical adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients and correlate these findings with patient-reported symptomatology scores. Additionally, to quantify the rate of concurrent pathological radiological findings in this group.
METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review study at a single tertiary centre. AIS patients aged 10-16 who had received a whole spine MRI between September 2007 and January 2019 and who had not received surgical intervention to their spine were included. MRI scan reports were screened to extract those who had evidence of DDD. These were then reviewed by a blinded second reviewer who graded every disc using the Pfirrmann grading system. SRS-22 scores were extracted for patients when available.
RESULTS: In total, 968 participants were included in the study. Of these, 93 (9.6%) had evidence of DDD, which was Pfirrmann grade ≥ 3 in 28 (2.9%). The most commonly affected level was L5/S1 (59.1% of DDD cases). A total of 55 patients (5.7%) had evidence of syringomyelia, 41 (3.4%) had evidence of spondylolisthesis (all L5/S1), 14 (1.4%) had bilateral L5 pars defects, and 5 (0.5%) had facet joint degeneration. Spondylolisthesis and bilateral pars defects were more common in patients with DDD identified on MRI scan (p < 0.001 and p = 0.04, respectively). Function (p = 0.048) and pain (p = 0.046) scores were worse in patients with DDD.
CONCLUSIONS: We present a baseline for the rate and severity of DDD in the non-operative AIS cohort. This should assist in decision-making and counselling of patients prior to surgery.
METHODS: III.

UNASSIGNED: Altered spinopelvic morphology is observed in many spine pathologies occurring during growth. The aim of the study is to better understand the sagittal compensatory mechanisms and their possible influence on the occurrence of pain in selected pediatric spine pathologies.
UNASSIGNED: A bibliographic search in the PubMed database included articles published between September 1965 and July 2023. The keywords contained in the search were \"spondylolysis,\" \"spondylolisthesis,\" \"scoliosis,\" \"kypho,\" \"sagittal,\" \"pediatric,\" \"child,\" \"adolescent,\" \"grow,\" \"development,\" and \"pain.\"
UNASSIGNED: The largest diversity in sagittal alignment patterns was reported in idiopathic scoliosis, with global flattening of the spine being the most common. Kyphotic deformations occurring during growth are characterized by structural thoracic or thoracolumbar kyphosis compensated by lumbar hyperlordosis and lower pelvic incidence. Whereas in spondylolisthesis, altered morphology of the spinopelvic junction with high values of pelvic incidence is observed. Pain does not seem to be related to sagittal alignment in idiopathic scoliosis. In Scheuermann disease, it is localized at the apex of the deformity and is associated with the curve pattern, whereas in spondylolisthesis, sagittal alignment correlates with pain scores only in high-grade slips.
UNASSIGNED: Most of the patients with spine disorders that occurred during growth present a clinically balanced posture in the sagittal plane. It suggests that compensatory mechanisms before achieving skeletal maturity are really significant. A comprehension of sagittal alignment in spine deformities and its relationship to pain is essential for the proper assessment and treatment of these disorders.

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: Low back pain (LBP) is an emerging disease. This review aims to investigate the role of gender-related factors in the diagnosis, clinical, and surgical management of LBP.
METHODS: From January 2002 to March 2023, EMBASE, SCOPUS, OVID-MEDLINE, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant papers for further analysis.
RESULTS: Fifteen papers were included in this review. Sex- and gender-related differences were analyzed regarding the following points: (1) LBP epidemiology; (2) LBP physiopathology; (3) conservative management of LBP; (4) major vertebral surgery for LBP. The conservative treatment of LBP highlights that women claim services later in terms of poorer health status than men. In the postoperative phase, female patients show worse LBP, quality of life, and disability, but equal or greater interval change, compared with male patients complaining of lumbar degenerative disease.
CONCLUSIONS: LBP epidemiology and clinical outcomes, following conservative and surgical management of patients complaining of back pain, might depend on both sex- and gender-related factors. It is mandatory to assess gender-related indicators in patients referred to LBP and address them to improve their clinical outcomes and quality of life.