Effect of the decompression only compared to decompression with on lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: A meta-analysis

Background: A meta-analysis study was completed to measure how to forecast the effect of the decompression only compared to decompression with fusion on lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods: Until October 2024, an inclusive literature study was accomplished, and 1865 related studies were reviewed. The 31 nominated studies encompassed 31678 participants with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis at the beginning of the study. The odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to look at the outcome of the decompression only compared to decompression with fusion on lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis dichotomous, or continuous methods with either a fixed or random model. Results: In individuals with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis, decompression had significantly lower visual analog scale back score (MD, -0.57; 95% CI,-0.91- -0.23, p=0.001), visual analog scale leg score (MD, -0.26; 95% CI, -.49- -0.03, p=0.03), Oswestry Disability Index score (MD, -2.42; 95% CI, -4.75- -0.08, p=0.04), operation time (MD, -82.60; 95% CI, -130.06- -35.14, p<0.001) intraoperative blood loss (MD, -261.93; 95% CI, -360.49- -163.36, p<0.001), and length of hospital stay (MD, -20.09; 95% CI, -29.55- -10.64, p<0.001) compared to decompression with fusion treatment. However, no significant difference was found between decompression and decompression with fusion treatment in European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions score (MD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.04-0.01, p=0.28) Short-Form 36 physical component summary (MD, -0.73; 95% CI, -2.70-1.24, p=0.47), Short-Form 36 mental component summary score (MD, 0.08; 95% CI, -2.94-3.10, p=0.96), patient satisfaction (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.25-1.09, p=0.08), overall complication rate (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68-1.26, p=0.61), and overall reoperation rate (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.85-2.13, p=0.21) in individuals with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Conclusions: In individuals with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis, decompression had significantly lower visual analog scale back score, visual analog scale leg score, Oswestry Disability Index score, operation time, intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay, however, no significant difference was in European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions score Short-Form 36 physical component summary, Short-Form 36 mental component summary score, patient satisfaction overall complication rate and overall reoperation compared to decompression with fusion treatment. To validate this finding more studies are required, and care is essential to be implemented when interconnecting with its values, since many comparisons had law number of selected studies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Clinical Medical Research
Published
2025-07-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.61466/ijcmr3040004
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.94
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effect of the decompression only compared to decompression with on lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: A meta-analysis

Theodor Georg
2 citations
International Journal of Clinical Medical Research
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
2.94
article

Effect of the decompression only compared to decompression with on lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: A meta-analysis

Theodor Georg
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Background: A meta-analysis study was completed to measure how to forecast the effect of the decompression only compared to decompression with fusion on lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods: Until October 2024, an inclusive literature study was accomplished, and 1865 related studies were reviewed. The 31 nominated studies encompassed 31678 participants with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis at the beginning of the study. The odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to look at the outcome of the decompression only compared to decompression with fusion on lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis dichotomous, or continuous methods with either a fixed or random model. Results: In individuals with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis, decompression had significantly lower visual analog scale back score (MD, -0.57; 95% CI,-0.91- -0.23, p=0.001), visual analog scale leg score (MD, -0.26; 95% CI, -.49- -0.03, p=0.03), Oswestry Disability Index score (MD, -2.42; 95% CI, -4.75- -0.08, p=0.04), operation time (MD, -82.60; 95% CI, -130.06- -35.14, p<0.001) intraoperative blood loss (MD, -261.93; 95% CI, -360.49- -163.36, p<0.001), and length of hospital stay (MD, -20.09; 95% CI, -29.55- -10.64, p<0.001) compared to decompression with fusion treatment. However, no significant difference was found between decompression and decompression with fusion treatment in European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions score (MD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.04-0.01, p=0.28) Short-Form 36 physical component summary (MD, -0.73; 95% CI, -2.70-1.24, p=0.47), Short-Form 36 mental component summary score (MD, 0.08; 95% CI, -2.94-3.10, p=0.96), patient satisfaction (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.25-1.09, p=0.08), overall complication rate (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68-1.26, p=0.61), and overall reoperation rate (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.85-2.13, p=0.21) in individuals with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Conclusions: In individuals with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis, decompression had significantly lower visual analog scale back score, visual analog scale leg score, Oswestry Disability Index score, operation time, intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay, however, no significant difference was in European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions score Short-Form 36 physical component summary, Short-Form 36 mental component summary score, patient satisfaction overall complication rate and overall reoperation compared to decompression with fusion treatment. To validate this finding more studies are required, and care is essential to be implemented when interconnecting with its values, since many comparisons had law number of selected studies.

International Journal of Clinical Medical ResearchVol. 3(4)
Sana Klinikum Offenbach (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
2.94
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.