Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Decompression Alone in L4-5 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis With Translational Motion: Short-term Results in a Preliminary Cohort.
Sumedha Singh, Pratyush Shahi, Tejas Subramanian, Kyle W Morse, Nishtha Singh, Amy Lu, Omri Maayan, Kasra Araghi, Olivia C Tuma, Tomoyuki Asada, Maximilian K Korsun, James E Dowdell, Evan D Sheha, Harvinder Sandhu, Todd J Albert, Sheeraz A Qureshi, Sravisht Iyer
{"title":"Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Decompression Alone in L4-5 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis With Translational Motion: Short-term Results in a Preliminary Cohort.","authors":"Sumedha Singh, Pratyush Shahi, Tejas Subramanian, Kyle W Morse, Nishtha Singh, Amy Lu, Omri Maayan, Kasra Araghi, Olivia C Tuma, Tomoyuki Asada, Maximilian K Korsun, James E Dowdell, Evan D Sheha, Harvinder Sandhu, Todd J Albert, Sheeraz A Qureshi, Sravisht Iyer","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000001804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Although fusion surgery is the established recommendation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) with instability, a decompression alone might be needed in some cases based on the patient's age, comorbidity burden, surgical fitness, and preference.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To analyze the outcomes of minimally invasive decompression alone in patients with L4-5 DLS and translational motion ≥2 mm and compare with fusion over short term.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS with translational motion ≥2 mm and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up (maximum follow-up of 2 y) were included. Postoperative improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was analyzed. The decompression and fusion groups were compared for improvement in PROMs, minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and response on global rating change (GRC) scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-four patients were included, out of which 60 (71.4%) underwent fusion. The decompression group had a significantly higher average age compared with fusion (69.3 vs. 64.8 y, P =0.036). There was no significant difference between the groups in other demographic variables and preoperative PROMs. The decompression group showed significant improvement in PROM postoperatively. The decompression group had a comparable magnitude of improvement in PROMs and MCID and PASS achievement rates as fusion over short term follow-up. More than 80% of patients reported feeling better compared with preoperative at both the timepoints with no significant difference in the responses between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Minimally invasive decompression alone does lead to significant postoperative improvement over the short term and may be considered as an option in patients with unstable spondylolisthesis where fusion cannot be done. However, these are preliminary results and future research with a larger sample size and longer follow-up is required to further investigate this topic.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":10457,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"E8-E14"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001804","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Study design: Retrospective cohort.
Summary of background data: Although fusion surgery is the established recommendation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) with instability, a decompression alone might be needed in some cases based on the patient's age, comorbidity burden, surgical fitness, and preference.
Objective: To analyze the outcomes of minimally invasive decompression alone in patients with L4-5 DLS and translational motion ≥2 mm and compare with fusion over short term.
Methods: Patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS with translational motion ≥2 mm and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up (maximum follow-up of 2 y) were included. Postoperative improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was analyzed. The decompression and fusion groups were compared for improvement in PROMs, minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and response on global rating change (GRC) scale.
Results: Eighty-four patients were included, out of which 60 (71.4%) underwent fusion. The decompression group had a significantly higher average age compared with fusion (69.3 vs. 64.8 y, P =0.036). There was no significant difference between the groups in other demographic variables and preoperative PROMs. The decompression group showed significant improvement in PROM postoperatively. The decompression group had a comparable magnitude of improvement in PROMs and MCID and PASS achievement rates as fusion over short term follow-up. More than 80% of patients reported feeling better compared with preoperative at both the timepoints with no significant difference in the responses between the 2 groups.
Conclusion: Minimally invasive decompression alone does lead to significant postoperative improvement over the short term and may be considered as an option in patients with unstable spondylolisthesis where fusion cannot be done. However, these are preliminary results and future research with a larger sample size and longer follow-up is required to further investigate this topic.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Spine Surgery is the ideal journal for the busy practicing spine surgeon or trainee, as it is the only journal necessary to keep up to date with new clinical research and surgical techniques. Readers get to watch leaders in the field debate controversial topics in a new controversies section, and gain access to evidence-based reviews of important pathologies in the systematic reviews section. The journal features a surgical technique complete with a video, and a tips and tricks section that allows surgeons to review the important steps prior to a complex procedure.
Clinical Spine Surgery provides readers with primary research studies, specifically level 1, 2 and 3 studies, ensuring that articles that may actually change a surgeon’s practice will be read and published. Each issue includes a brief article that will help a surgeon better understand the business of healthcare, as well as an article that will help a surgeon understand how to interpret increasingly complex research methodology. Clinical Spine Surgery is your single source for up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations for spine care.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
