BACKGROUND Cervical spondylolysis with spondylolisthesis is a rare disorder. According to previous reports, the spondylolisthesis is usually Meyerding Grade I, with only a limited number of cases receiving surgical treatment. We hereby report a special case of cervical spondylolysis with Grade-II spondylolisthesis, treated with single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and present a literature review related to this problem. CASE REPORT Here, we report the case of a 52-year-old man who complained of posterior neck pain and numbness of the bilateral upper limbs. Radiological examination showed bilateral spondylolysis of the C6 and Meyerding Grade-II spondylolisthesis of C6 on C7 with instability. The patient underwent a single-level C6/C7 ACDF surgery. The symptoms of neck pain and bilateral upper-limb numbness were relieved immediately after surgery. The immediate postoperative radiological examination showed successful restoration of sagittal alignment. At 3-month follow-up, the patient had returned to normal life without any symptoms. At 2-year follow-up, computed tomography showed that C6-C7 fusion had been achieved and alignment was maintained. CONCLUSIONS Cervical spondylolysis, as an uncommon spinal disorder, has been regarded as a congenital abnormity, and has unique radiological characteristics. For most of the cases with cervical spondylolysis, even with Grade-II spondylolisthesis, single-level ACDF can achieve good clinical and radiological outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the morphometry of paraspinal muscles in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS), and healthy individuals.
METHODS: Thirty-seven pairs of DS patients were selected using propensity score matching with IS patients, while 37 healthy individuals matched for age, sex, and BMI were selected as controls. The relative cross-sectional area (rCSA), and relative functional cross-sectional area (rfCSA) of paraspinal muscles were measured, and the degree of fatty infiltration (FI) was calculated. Based on occupational differences, the patients were also divided into worker and farmer groups, and the same measurements were taken on them.
RESULTS: At the L3/L4 level, the multifidus (MF) FI was greater in the DS and IS groups than in the control group, the erector spinae (ES) rfCSA was higher in the IS group than in the DS and control groups. At the L4/L5 level, MF rfCSA was smaller in the DS and IS groups than in the control group; ES rfCSA was higher in the IS group than in the DS and control groups. At the L5/S1 level, MF rfCSA was smaller in the DS and IS groups than in the control group; ES rfCSA was higher in the IS group than in the DS group. At the L3/L4, L4/L5 level, MF rfCSA were higher in the worker group than in the farmer group (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The morphological changes in paraspinal muscles in patients with DS were dominated by selective atrophy of the MF, while in patients with IS, the morphological changes in paraspinal muscle showed selective atrophy of the MF accompanied by compensatory hypertrophy of the ES. The surgeon should consider the morphological differences in paraspinal muscle between different types of lumbar spondylolisthesis when establishing the appropriate surgical program.

UNASSIGNED: To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (UBE-TLIF) and endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis.
UNASSIGNED: Between November 2019 and May 2023, a total of 81 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis who met the selection criteria were enrolled. They were randomly divided into UBE-TLIF group (39 cases) and Endo-TLIF group (42 cases). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups ( P>0.05), including gender, age, body mass index, surgical segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for low back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and serum markers including creatine kinase (CK) and C reactive protein (CRP). Total blood loss (TBL), intraoperative blood loss, hidden blood loss (HBL), postoperative drainage volume, and operation time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Serum markers (CK, CRP) levels were compared between the two groups at 1 day before operation and 1, 3, and 5 days after operation. Furthermore, the VAS scores for low back and leg pain, and ODI at 1 day before operation and 1 day, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after operation, and intervertebral fusion rate at 12 months after operation were compared between the two groups.
UNASSIGNED: All surgeries were completed successfully without occurrence of incision infection, vascular or nerve injury, epidural hematoma, dural tear, or postoperative paraplegia. The operation time in UBE-TLIF group was significantly shorter than that in Endo-TLIF group, but the intraoperative blood loss, TBL, and HBL in UBE-TLIF group were significantly more than those in Endo-TLIF group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between the two groups ( P>0.05). The levels of CK at 1 day and 3 days after operation and CRP at 1, 3, and 5 days after operation in UBE-TLIF group were slightly higher than those in the Endo-TLIF group ( P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the levels of CK and CPR between the two groups at other time points ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12 months. VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI at each time point after operation significantly improved when compared with those before operation in the two groups ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back and leg pain and ODI between the two groups at each time point after operation ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups at 12 months after operation ( P>0.05).
UNASSIGNED: UBE-TLIF and Endo-TLIF are both effective methods for treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, compared to Endo-TLIF, UBE-TLIF requires further improvement in minimally invasive techniques to reduce tissue trauma and blood loss.
UNASSIGNED: 比较单侧双通道脊柱内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术（unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion，UBE-TLIF）与单通道脊柱内镜下经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术（endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion，Endo-TLIF）对单节段退行性腰椎管狭窄症伴腰椎滑脱的治疗效果。.
UNASSIGNED: 纳入2019年11月—2023年5月收治且符合选择标准的81例单节段退行性腰椎管狭窄症伴腰椎滑脱患者，随机分为UBE-TLIF组（39例）和Endo-TLIF组（42例）。两组患者性别、年龄、身体质量指数、手术节段及术前腰、腿痛疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）、Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）、血清学指标肌酸激酶（creatine kinase，CK）和C反应蛋白（C reactive protein，CRP）水平等基线资料比较差异均无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。记录并比较两组患者总失血量（total blood loss，TBL）、术中失血量、隐性失血量（hidden blood loss，HBL）、术后引流量、手术时间；比较两组术前1 d及术后1、3、5 d血清学指标CK、CRP水平，术前1 d及术后1 d、3个月、6个月、12个月腰、腿痛VAS评分、ODI及术后12个月椎间融合率。.
UNASSIGNED: 所有手术均顺利完成，无切口感染、血管神经损伤、硬膜外血肿、硬脑膜撕裂和术后截瘫等情况发生。UBE-TLIF组手术时间少于Endo-TLIF组，但术中失血量、TBL、HBL均多于Endo-TLIF组，差异均有统计学意义（ P<0.05）；两组术后引流量比较差异无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。UBE-TLIF组术后1、3 d CK水平及术后1、3、5 d CRP水平均高于Endo-TLIF组（ P<0.05）；其余时间点两组CK和CPR水平比较差异无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。两组患者均获随访12个月。两组术后各时间点腰、腿痛VAS评分及ODI均较术前显著改善（ P<0.05）；术后各时间点两组间腰、腿痛VAS评分及ODI比较差异均无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。术后12个月两组椎间融合率比较差异亦无统计学意义（ P>0.05）。.
UNASSIGNED: UBE-TLIF与Endo-TLIF均为治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症伴腰椎滑脱的有效方法，但与Endo-TLIF相比，UBE-TLIF需在微创技术上进一步改进，以减少组织创伤与失血量。.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To propose a new lumbar degenerative staging system using the current radiological classification system.
METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of retrospective databases between January 2018 and December 2022 was performed. Total of 410 patients for Modic changes, paravertebral muscle fat infiltration, disc degeneration, articular process degeneration, vertebral endplate degeneration and other structures, and disc displacement, Spondylolisthesis, and stenosis, and grouped patients according to stage were assessed. Visual analog scale, Japanese Orthopaedic Association, and Oswestry Disability Index scores were used to assess low back pain strength, neurological function, and quality of life, respectively.
RESULTS: The lumbar degeneration staging system consists of 8 variables, which can be divided into 3 steps: early, middle and late, and the correlation between each variable is strong (P < 0.05). The later the staging, the worse the Japanese Orthopaedic Association, visual analog scale, and Oswestry Disability Index scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with later stages have worse clinical scores. This staging system recommends a uniform classification to assess lumbar degeneration.

OBJECTIVE: In the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) with Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery, interbody fusion implants play a key role in supporting the vertebral body and facilitating fusion. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of implantation depth on sagittal parameters and functional outcomes in patients undergoing PLIF surgery.
METHODS: This study reviewed 128 patients with L4-L5 LDS between January 2016 and August 2019. All patients underwent an open PLIF surgery that included intravertebral decompression, implantation of pedicle screws and cage. We grouped according to the position of the center of the cage relative to the L5 vertebral endplate. Patients with the center of the cage located at the anterior 1/2 of the upper end plate of the L5 vertebral body were divided into Anterior group, and located at the posterior 1/2 of the upper end plate of the L5 vertebral body were divided into Posterior group. The lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT) and slope degree (SD) was measured for radiographic outcomes. We used the visual analog scale (VAS) and the oswestry disability index (ODI) score to assess functional outcomes. Paired t-test was used to compare imaging and bedside data before and after surgery between the two groups, and independent sample t-test, χ2 test and Fisher exact test were used to compare the data between the two groups.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up of Anterior group was 44.13 ± 9.23 months, and Posterior group was 45.62 ± 10.29 months (P > 0.05). The LL, SL, PT, SS, SD and PI-LL after operation showed great improvements, relative to the corresponding preoperative values in both groups (P < 0.05). Compared to Posterior group, Anterior group exhibited far enhanced SL (15.49 ± 3.28 vs. 13.67 ± 2.53, P < 0.05), LL (53.47 ± 3.21 vs. 52.08 ± 3.15, P < 0.05) outcomes and showed depressed PI-LL (8.87 ± 5.05 vs. 10.73 ± 5.39, P < 0.05) outcomes at the final follow-up. Meanwhile, the SL in Anterior group (16.18 ± 3.99) 1 months after operation were also higher than in Posterior group (14.12 ± 3.57) (P < 0.05). We found that VAS and ODI at the final follow-up in Anterior group (3.62 ± 0.96, 25.19 ± 5.25) were significantly lower than those in Posterior group (4.12 ± 0.98, 27.68 ± 5.13) (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with LDS, the anteriorly placed cage may provide better improvement of SL after PLIF surgery. Meanwhile, the anteriorly placed cage may achieve better sagittal parameters of LL and PI-LL and functional outcomes at the final follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the difference in clinical efficacy between two surgical approaches, oblique lateral approach and intervertebral foraminal approach, in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
METHODS: English databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science, were systematically searched using keywords such as \"oblique lumbar interbody fusion\" and \"transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.\" Concurrently, Chinese databases, including CNKI, WanFang data, VIP, and CBM, were also queried using corresponding Chinese terms. The search spanned from January 2014 to February 2024, focusing on published studies in both Chinese and English that compared the clinical efficacy of OLIF and TLIF. The literature screening was conducted by reviewing titles, abstracts, and full texts. Literature meeting the inclusion criteria underwent quality assessment, and relevant data were extracted. Statistical analysis and a meta-analysis of the observational data for both surgical groups were performed using Excel and RevMan 5.4 software. Findings revealed a total of 14 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, encompassing 877 patients. Of these, 414 patients were in the OLIF group, while 463 were in the TLIF group. Meta-analysis of the statistical data revealed that compared to TLIF, OLIF had a shorter average surgical duration (P < 0.05), reduced intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.05), shorter average hospital stay (P < 0.05), better improvement in postoperative VAS scores (P < 0.05), superior enhancement in postoperative ODI scores (P < 0.05), more effective restoration of disc height (P < 0.05), and better correction of lumbar lordosis (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences between OLIF and TLIF in terms of the incidence of surgical complications (P > 0.05) and fusion rates (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: When treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, OLIF demonstrates significant advantages over TLIF in terms of shorter surgical duration, reduced intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospital stay, superior improvement in postoperative VAS and ODI scores, better restoration of disc height, and more effective correction of lumbar lordosis.

Diagnosing early lumbar spondylolisthesis is challenging for many doctors because of the lack of obvious symptoms. Using deep learning (DL) models to improve the accuracy of X-ray diagnoses can effectively reduce missed and misdiagnoses in clinical practice. This study aimed to use a two-stage deep learning model, the Res-SE-Net model with the YOLOv8 algorithm, to facilitate efficient and reliable diagnosis of early lumbar spondylolisthesis based on lateral X-ray image identification.
A total of 2424 lumbar lateral radiographs of patients treated in the Beijing Tongren Hospital between January 2021 and September 2023 were obtained. The data were labeled and mutually identified by 3 orthopedic surgeons after reshuffling in a random order and divided into a training set, validation set, and test set in a ratio of 7:2:1. We trained 2 models for automatic detection of spondylolisthesis. YOLOv8 model was used to detect the position of lumbar spondylolisthesis, and the Res-SE-Net classification method was designed to classify the clipped area and determine whether it was lumbar spondylolisthesis. The model performance was evaluated using a test set and an external dataset from Beijing Haidian Hospital. Finally, we compared model validation results with professional clinicians\' evaluation.
The model achieved promising results, with a high diagnostic accuracy of 92.3%, precision of 93.5%, and recall of 93.1% for spondylolisthesis detection on the test set, the area under the curve (AUC) value was 0.934.
Our two-stage deep learning model provides doctors with a reference basis for the better diagnosis and treatment of early lumbar spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated the clinical efficacy of decompression alone in lower-grade spondylolisthesis. A higher rate of surgical revision and a lower rate of back pain relief was also observed. However, there is a lack of relevant biomechanical evidence after decompression alone for lower-grade spondylolisthesis.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluating the biomechanical characteristics of total laminectomy, hemilaminectomy, and facetectomy for lower-grade spondylolisthesis by analyzing the range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressure (IDP), annulus fibrosus stress (AFS), facet joints contact force (FJCF), and isthmus stress (IS).
METHODS: Firstly, we utilized finite element tools to develop a normal lumbar model and subsequently constructed a spondylolisthesis model based on the normal model. We then performed total laminectomy, hemilaminectomy, and one-third facetectomy in the normal model and spondylolisthesis model, respectively. Finally, we analyzed parameters, such as ROM, IDP, AFS, FJCF, and IS, for all the models under the same concentrate force and moment.
RESULTS: The intact spondylolisthesis model showed a significant increase in the relative parameters, including ROM, AFS, FJCF, and IS, compared to the intact normal lumbar model. Hemilaminectomy and one-third facetectomy in both spondylolisthesis and normal lumbar models did not result in an obvious change in ROM, IDP, AFS, FJCF, and IS compared to the pre-operative state. Moreover, there was no significant difference in the degree of parameter changes between the spondylolisthesis and normal lumbar models after undergoing the same surgical procedures. However, total laminectomy significantly increased ROM, AFS, and IS and decreased the FJCF in both normal lumbar models and spondylolisthesis models.
CONCLUSIONS: Hemilaminectomy and one-third facetectomy did not have a significant impact on the segment stability of lower-grade spondylolisthesis; however, patients with LDS undergoing hemilaminectomy and one-third facetectomy may experience higher isthmus stress on the surgical side during rotation. In addition, total laminectomy changes the biomechanics in both normal lumbar models and spondylolisthesis models.

Thoracolumbar traumatic spondylolisthesis is a relatively rare phenomenon and has poor prognosis due to serious spinal cord or cauda equina injuries. In such cases, closed reduction is a method for restoring the vertebral sequence and may play an important role in the treatment process, although whether it is actually feasible for patients with this condition requires further investigation. The present study included 9 patients with serious thoracolumbar traumatic spondylolisthesis to determine the advantages of closed reduction over total reduction through open surgery.
Data from 9 patients (cases 1-9), diagnosed with severe thoracolumbar traumatic spondylolisthesis between June 2012 and August 2023, were retrospectively reviewed. Five patients were treated with closed reduction in an emergency department and subsequently underwent delayed internal fixation surgery at least 48 hours after the injury, and 4 with similar serious injuries underwent emergency surgery. The incidence of complications and recovery of the spinal cord or cauda equina were compared between groups.
There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics or adverse events between the 2 groups. The reduction group had a shorter surgical duration and less blood loss than the surgery group. Although patients in the surgery group may have experienced more pain, there were no significant differences between the groups in Oswestry Disability Index or Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores. Thus, regardless of whether closed reduction was chosen, patients experienced a similar quality of life for a relatively prolonged period.
Closed reduction may be feasible for serious thoracolumbar traumatic spondylolisthesis, although the safety of this method requires further research.