UNASSIGNED: We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences.
UNASSIGNED: The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study was a multicentre randomized controlled trial with recruitment from September 2006 to February 2012. A total of 247 patients with one- or two-level central lumbar spinal stenosis, stratified by the presence of DS, were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with fusion. The five-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scales for back and leg pain, and patient-reported satisfaction, decreased pain, and increased walking distance. The reoperation rate was recorded.
UNASSIGNED: Five-year follow-up was completed by 213 (95%) of the eligible patients (mean age 67 years; 155 female (67%)). After five years, ODI was similar irrespective of treatment, with a mean of 25 (SD 18) for decompression alone and 28 (SD 22) for decompression with fusion (p = 0.226). Mean EQ-5D was higher for decompression alone than for fusion (0.69 (SD 0.28) vs 0.59 (SD 0.34); p = 0.027). In the no-DS subset, fewer patients reported decreased leg pain after fusion (58%) than with decompression alone (80%) (relative risk (RR) 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.97). The frequency of subsequent spinal surgery was 24% for decompression with fusion and 22% for decompression alone (RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.8)).
UNASSIGNED: Adding fusion to decompression in spinal stenosis surgery, with or without spondylolisthesis, does not improve the five-year ODI, which is consistent with our two-year report. Three secondary outcomes that did not differ at two years favoured decompression alone at five years. Our results support decompression alone as the preferred method for operating on spinal stenosis.

An observational study to discover the common conditions affecting the lumbosacral region that may affect lumbosacral position and tension. All the patients, underwent MRI exaamination (magnetic resonance imaging) in the supine position, were examined by the same consultant radiologist. The article was revised by the institutional ethical approval committee. The position of the nerve roots was observed, and the number of nerve roots was calculated anterior to a line passing between the mid-transvers process of L3(third lumbar vertebra). The number of nerve roots ahead of this line was calculated by the radiologist at the level of the right intervertebral foramen and at the left one. This procedure was applied to the normal group, and 5 common pathological diseases were repeated including single-level lumbar disc prolapse, multiple-disc prolapse, multiple bulge, spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis (at the level of L45 (fourth to fifth lumbar vertebrae) or L5S1 (fifth lumbar to first sacral vertebrae) being outside the study area, i.e., L3). We noticed significant difference in the number of the nerve roots between the cases with herniated discs, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis with the normal group and the significance was in ascending increment in significance being the highest in cases with spondylolisthesis, and even in the groups of other pathologies which are statistically not significant, we noticed that the significance is proportional to the severity of the disease being the least in single level cases (p 0.427), to be more significant on cases with multiple prolapses(p 0.319) to be more in cases with multiple bulges to start to be statistically significant in herniated, higher significance in cases with spinal stenosis to be the highest in cases with spondylolisthesis.

Spine disorders can cause severe functional limitations, including back pain, decreased pulmonary function, and increased mortality risk. Plain radiography is the first-line imaging modality to diagnose suspected spine disorders. Nevertheless, radiographical appearance is not always sufficient due to highly variable patient and imaging parameters, which can lead to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Employing an accurate automated detection model can alleviate the workload of clinical experts, thereby reducing human errors, facilitating earlier detection, and improving diagnostic accuracy. To this end, deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tools have significantly outperformed the accuracy of traditional CAD software. Motivated by these observations, we proposed a deep learning-based approach for end-to-end detection and localization of spine disorders from plain radiographs. In doing so, we took the first steps in employing state-of-the-art transformer networks to differentiate images of multiple spine disorders from healthy counterparts and localize the identified disorders, focusing on vertebral compression fractures (VCF) and spondylolisthesis due to their high prevalence and potential severity. The VCF dataset comprised 337 images, with VCFs collected from 138 subjects and 624 normal images collected from 337 subjects. The spondylolisthesis dataset comprised 413 images, with spondylolisthesis collected from 336 subjects and 782 normal images collected from 413 subjects. Transformer-based models exhibited 0.97 Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) in VCF detection and 0.95 AUC in spondylolisthesis detection. Further, transformers demonstrated significant performance improvements against existing end-to-end approaches by 4-14% AUC (p-values < 10-13) for VCF detection and by 14-20% AUC (p-values < 10-9) for spondylolisthesis detection.

UNASSIGNED: A retrospective case-control propensity score-matching study.
UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to longitudinally evaluate whether preoperative ligamentous stenosis at the spondylolisthetic segments could affect the incidence of symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis following one-segment fusion surgery.
UNASSIGNED: Several risk factors for symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis following fusion surgery have been assessed. Patients with lumbar canal stenosis mainly due to ligamentum flavum (LF) hypertrophy (ligamentous stenosis) also have LF hypertrophy in other segments.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 76 patients participated in this case-control study (neurologically symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis, n=33; neurologically asymptomatic cases at follow-up, n=43). Their risk factors during surgery and magnetic resonance (MR) images before the surgery and at follow-up were evaluated. Data from the two groups (n=25 each) were matched using propensity scores for age, sex, time to MR imaging at follow-up, surgical procedure, and LF hypertrophy in adjacent segments before the surgery and analyzed.
UNASSIGNED: Compared with the asymptomatic group, the symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis group had a significantly larger LF area/spinal canal area in the spondylolisthetic segments before the surgery. During the follow-up periods (in months), they had a larger LF area/ spinal canal area in the adjacent segments: the two values were significantly correlated. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for determining symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis were high compared with on the cutoff value for the LF area/spinal canal area at the spondylolisthetic segments before the surgery. These results were the same after matching.
UNASSIGNED: Symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis is mainly caused by LF hypertrophy. Ligamentous stenosis at the spondylolisthetic segments before fusion surgery might be strongly associated with symptomatic adjacent canal stenosis at follow-up.

UNASSIGNED: A retrospective cohort study using the Kaplan-Meier method with propensity-score matching.
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate whether the presence of prevalent morphometric vertebral fractures (VFs) poses a risk for subsequent clinical VFs after short-fusion surgery in women aged ≥60 years with degenerative spondylolisthesis.
UNASSIGNED: VFs are common osteoporotic fractures and are associated with a low quality of life. Subsequent VFs are a complication of instrumented fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar disorders. Thus, risk factors for subsequent VFs after fusion surgery must be analyzed. Population-based studies have suggested that prevalent morphometric VFs led to a higher incidence of subsequent VFs in postmenopausal women; however, no studies have investigated whether prevalent morphometric VFs are a risk factor for subsequent VFs after fusion surgery in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.
UNASSIGNED: The study enrolled a total of 237 older female patients: 50 and 187 patients had prevalent morphometric VFs (VF [+] group) and nonprevalent morphometric VFs (VF [-] group), respectively. The time to subsequent clinical VFs after fusion surgery was compared between the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method. Moreover, 40 and 80 patients in the VF (+) and VF (-) groups, respectively, were analyzed and matched by propensity scores for age, follow-up duration, surgical procedure, number of fused segments, body mass index, and number of patients treated for osteoporosis.
UNASSIGNED: Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that the VF (+) group had a higher incidence of subsequent clinical VFs than the VF (-) group, and Cox regression analysis showed that the presence of prevalent morphometric VFs was an independent risk factor for subsequent clinical VFs before matching. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated comparable results after matching.
UNASSIGNED: The presence of prevalent morphometric VFs may be a risk factor for subsequent clinical VFs in older women with degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent short-fusion surgery.

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is widely used to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis because it provides definitive decompression and fixation. Although it has several advantages, it has some disadvantages and risks, such as paraspinal muscle injury, potential intraoperative bleeding, postoperative pain, hardware failure, subsidence, and medical comorbidity. Lumbar decompressive bilateral laminectomy with interspinous fixation (DLISF) is less invasive and can be used on some patients with PLIF, but this has not been reported. To compare the efficacy and safety of DLISF in the treatment of low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis with that of PLIF. We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 81 patients with grade I spondylolisthesis, who had undergone PLIF or DLISF and were followed up for more than 1 year. Surgical outcomes, visual analog scale, radiologic outcomes, including Cobb angle and difference in body translation, and postoperative complications were assessed. Forty-one patients underwent PLIF, whereas 40 underwent DLISF. The operative times were 271.0 ± 57.2 and 150.6 ± 29.3 minutes for the PLIF and DLISF groups, respectively. The estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the PLIF group versus the DLISF group (290.7 ± 232.6 vs 122.2 ± 82.7 mL, P < .001). Body translation did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Overall pain improved during the 1-year follow-up when compared with baseline data. Medical complications were significantly lower in the DLISF group, whereas perioperative complications and hardware issues were higher in the PLIF group. The outcomes of DLISF, which is less invasive, were comparable to PLIF outcomes in patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis. As a salvage technique, DLISF may be a good option when compared with PLIF.

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.

BACKGROUND: Isolated decompression and decompression with instrumented fusion are accepted surgical treatments for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Although isolated decompression is a less costly solution with similar patient-reported outcomes, it is associated with higher rates of re-operation than primary fusion.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the costs associated with primary decompression, primary fusion, and decompression and fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. We further sought to establish at what revision rate is primary decompression still a less costly surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
METHODS: A retrospective database study of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) limited data set.
METHODS: Patients who underwent single-level fusion or decompression for degenerative spondylolisthesis.
METHODS: Cost of surgical care.
METHODS: All inpatient stays that underwent surgery for single-level lumbar/lumbosacral degenerative spondylolisthesis in the 2019 calendar year (n=6,653) were queried from the MEDPAR limited data set. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: primary decompression (n=300), primary fusion (n=5,757), and revision fusion (n=566). Univariate analysis was conducted to determine cost differences between these groups and results were confirmed with multivariable regression. An economic analysis was then done to determine at what revision rate would primary decompression still be a less costly treatment choice.
RESULTS: On univariate analysis, the cost of primary single-level decompression for spondylolisthesis was $14,690±9,484, the cost of primary single-level fusion was $26,376±11,967, and revision fusion was $26,686±11,309 (p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, primary fusion was associated with an increased cost of $3,751, and revision fusion was associated with increased cost of $7,502 (95%CI: 2,990-4,512, p<0.001). Economic analysis found that a revision rate less than or equal to 43.8% would still result in primary decompression being less costly for a practice than primary fusion for all patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Isolated decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is a less costly treatment choice even with rates of revision fusion as high as 43.8%. This was true even with an assumed revision rate of 0% after primary fusion. This study solely looks at cost data, however, and many patients may still benefit from primary fusion when appropriately indicated.

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of lumbar spondylolisthesis requires neural decompression, stabilization, and alignment restoration. Minimally invasive spine approaches offer a wide variety of advantages for spondylolisthesis management. This intraoperative note describes the treatment of L4-L5 lumbar spondylolisthesis with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PSF).
METHODS: The surgical technique for treating L4-L5 lumbar spondylolisthesis using a minimally invasive approach with LLIF and percutaneous PSF is described. This operative technique is illustrated with figures, and an intraoperative case example of its application is described.
RESULTS: LLIF with percutaneous PSF can be a safe, effective, and reliable option for treating lumbar spondylolisthesis when applied with appropriate surgical technique in a selected patient population. This technique is a valuable addition to the range of available spine surgical options.
CONCLUSIONS: LLIF with percutaneous PSF can be an effective technique for treating lumbar L4-L5 spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Deficiency in patient education has been correlated with increased disease-related morbidity and decreased access to care. However, the associations between educational level, preoperative disease severity, and postoperative outcomes in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis have yet to be explored.
METHODS: The spondylolisthesis dataset of the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD)-a cohort with prospectively collected data by the SpineCORe study team of the 12 highest enrolling sites with an 81% follow-up at 5 years -was utilized and stratified for educational level. Patients were classified into three categories (high school or less, graduate, or postgraduate). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) documented at baseline and follow-up included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, EQ-5D in quality-adjusted life years, and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain. Disease severity was measured with PROMs. Postoperatively, patients also completed the North American Spine Society assessment to measure their satisfaction with surgery. Multivariable regression analysis was used to compare education level with disease severity and postoperative outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent analysis, with 260 individuals (42.8%) at an educational level of high school or less. On univariate analysis, baseline disease severity was worse among patients with lower levels of education. On multivariable regression analysis, patients with postgraduate level of education had significantly lower ODI scores (β = -3.75, 95% CI -7.31 to -0.2, p = 0.039) compared to graduates, while the other PROMs were not associated with significant differences at baseline. Five years postoperatively, patients from various educational backgrounds exhibited similar rates of minimal clinically important differences in PROMs. Nevertheless, patients with the lowest educational level had higher ODI scores (27.1, p < 0.01), lower EQ-5D scores (0.701, p < 0.01), and higher NRS leg pain (3.0, p < 0.01) and back pain (4.0, p < 0.01) scores compared to those with graduate or postgraduate levels of education. The odds for postoperative satisfaction were also comparable between cohorts at 5 years (reference, graduate level; high school or less, OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46-1.64, p = 0.659; postgraduate, OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.7-3.65, p = 0.262).
CONCLUSIONS: Lower patient education level was associated with a greater baseline disease severity in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Surgery demonstrated similar benefits irrespective of educational background; however, individuals with lower educational level reported lower outcomes overall. This emphasizes the need for enhanced health literacy to mitigate disparities for reported outcomes.