Is it Necessary to Fuse? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of One- Versus Two-Level Fusions With Multilevel Decompression

Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.ObjectiveIn patients with multilevel degenerative lumbar pathology, the decision to extend fusion across all decompressed levels remains a subject of debate. While fusion provides stability in cases of instability or deformity, its necessity for adjacent levels without specific fusion indications is unclear. This study evaluates whether decompression alone at levels without clear fusion indications can achieve similar outcomes compared to spanning the entire decompression with fusion.MethodsThe present study is a retrospective cohort study. Patients who underwent one-level decompression and fusion with 2 level decompression (SLF) were propensity score matched with patients who underwent two-level decompression and fusion (DLF) for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complication rates, revision surgeries, and recovery kinetics were compared between the cohorts.ResultsAfter propensity score matching a total of 43 SLF patients were compared with 43 DLF patients. Early follow-up (<6 months) showed significantly higher SF-12 PCS scores in the SLF group (<i>P</i> = .042) and greater achievement of VAS-leg MCID (88.9% vs 59.4%, <i>P</i> = .012). Long-term outcomes (≥6 months) demonstrated no significant differences in ODI, VAS-back, VAS-leg, or SF-12 PCS scores between groups. There were no differences in intraoperative or perioperative complications. The postoperative complication rate was significantly higher in the DLF group (25.6% vs 7%, <i>P</i> = .019) including 4 DLF patients that underwent revision surgery while no SLF patients required revision during their follow up time.ConclusionSLF resulted in similar long-term outcomes compared to DLF with fewer revisions and adjacent segment symptoms. These findings suggest that "saving" a fusion level in cases without a specific fusion indication at the adjacent level may be warranted to optimize longevity of the construct. Further research is necessary to refine patient selection for fusion levels in degenerative lumbar disease.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Global Spine Journal
Published
2025-08-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682251370264
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.47
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Is it Necessary to Fuse? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of One- Versus Two-Level Fusions With Multilevel Decompression

Tejas Subramanian, Kyle W. Morse, Luis A. Colón, Tomoyuki Asada et al.
1 citations
Global Spine Journal
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
1.47
article

Is it Necessary to Fuse? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of One- Versus Two-Level Fusions With Multilevel Decompression

Tejas Subramanian, Kyle W. Morse, Luis A. Colón, Tomoyuki Asada, Matthew E. Cunningham, Yousi A. Oquendo, Austin C. Kaidi, Eric Zhao, Sravisht Iyer, Farah Musharbash, Annette Ehrlich, Francis Lovecchio, Mihir S. Dekhne, Kasra Araghi, James Dowdell, Tarek Harhash, Gregory S. Kazarian, Atahan Durbas, Sampson B. Sarpong, Sheeraz A. Qureshi, Pratyush Shahi, Takashi Hirase, Han Jo Kim
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.ObjectiveIn patients with multilevel degenerative lumbar pathology, the decision to extend fusion across all decompressed levels remains a subject of debate. While fusion provides stability in cases of instability or deformity, its necessity for adjacent levels without specific fusion indications is unclear. This study evaluates whether decompression alone at levels without clear fusion indications can achieve similar outcomes compared to spanning the entire decompression with fusion.MethodsThe present study is a retrospective cohort study. Patients who underwent one-level decompression and fusion with 2 level decompression (SLF) were propensity score matched with patients who underwent two-level decompression and fusion (DLF) for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complication rates, revision surgeries, and recovery kinetics were compared between the cohorts.ResultsAfter propensity score matching a total of 43 SLF patients were compared with 43 DLF patients. Early follow-up (<6 months) showed significantly higher SF-12 PCS scores in the SLF group (<i>P</i> = .042) and greater achievement of VAS-leg MCID (88.9% vs 59.4%, <i>P</i> = .012). Long-term outcomes (≥6 months) demonstrated no significant differences in ODI, VAS-back, VAS-leg, or SF-12 PCS scores between groups. There were no differences in intraoperative or perioperative complications. The postoperative complication rate was significantly higher in the DLF group (25.6% vs 7%, <i>P</i> = .019) including 4 DLF patients that underwent revision surgery while no SLF patients required revision during their follow up time.ConclusionSLF resulted in similar long-term outcomes compared to DLF with fewer revisions and adjacent segment symptoms. These findings suggest that "saving" a fusion level in cases without a specific fusion indication at the adjacent level may be warranted to optimize longevity of the construct. Further research is necessary to refine patient selection for fusion levels in degenerative lumbar disease.

Global Spine JournalVol. 16(2)
Hospital for Special Surgery (US), Cornell University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
1.47
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.