Jacob R. Ball, Matthew C. Gallo, Kareem Kebaish, Nicole Hang, Andy Ton, Fergui Hernandez, Marc Abdou, William J. Karakash, Jeffrey C. Wang, Raymond J. Hah, Ram K. Alluri
Neurospine 2024;21(4):1068-1077. Published online December 31, 2024
Objective The purpose of this study is to describe utilization, demographics, complications, and revisions for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) with stenosis undergoing decompression or decompression with fusion in the United States.
Methods A national insurance database was used to identify patients who underwent either decompression and fusion or decompression alone for management of DS from 2010–2022. Utilization trends, demographics, and complications for each procedure were compared.
Results A total of 162,878 patients were identified, of which 78,043 patients underwent combined single-level lumbar decompression and fusion and 84,835 underwent single-level lumbar decompression alone. Between 2010–2021, lumbar decompression and fusion became the predominant surgical intervention for DS in 2016 and continued to account for more than half of all procedures during the remainder of the study period. Factors such as age, sex, comorbidities, geographic region, and physician specialty training were associated with procedure choice. Decompression with fusion was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery up to 5 years postoperatively and an overall lower incidence of 30-day complications.
Conclusion Decompression with fusion has become the most common treatment for lumbar DS over the past decade despite a lack of compelling evidence supporting its use compared to decompression alone. A variety of patient and surgeon-specific factors is associated with procedure choice. After accounting for cofounders, we identified treatment-specific complications that may be valuable when counseling patients.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Long-term comparative study of Open-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, and UBE-TLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis Jian Luo, Lihua Shen, Changshen Bao, Zhichao Gao European Journal of Medical Research.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Interspinous process fixation versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion following decompression for single-level grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis: a retrospective propensity score-matched study Jingbo Ma, Tusheng Li, Nan Shen, Rigbat Rozi, Yu Ding Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
The effect of physical therapy in spine surgery: a systematic review Minjun Park, Nathan D. McLaughlin, Mayur S. Patel, Jorge F. Urquiaga, Mauricio J. Avila Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.2026; 147: 111900. CrossRef
Clinical and Surgical Outcomes in Patients with Lumbar Spine Pathologies: A Retrospective Study Adrian-Valentin Enache, Antonio-Daniel Corlatescu, Horia Petre Costin, Alexandru Vlad Ciurea Reports.2026; 9(1): 79. CrossRef
Uniportal endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for elderly patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective comparative study of reduced surgical trauma and accelerated early Juanming Lan, Bin Cao, Yongpeng Lin, Weixiong Hu, Rui Lin, Lulu Li, Bolai Chen Frontiers in Surgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Bilateral–Contralateral Endoscopic Decompression as a Fusion-Deferral Strategy in Upper Lumbar Stenosis: A Structural Rationale and Conditional Framework—A Technical Note with Cases Review Dong Hyun Lee, Sang Yeop Han, Seung Young Jeong, Il-Tae Jang Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(16): 5726. CrossRef
From the Editor-in-Chief: Featured Articles in the December 2024 Issue Inbo Han Neurospine.2024; 21(4): 1051. CrossRef
Large-Scale Analysis of Trends and Complications in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Surgery: A Commentary on “National Trends in Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis With Stenosis Treated With Fusion Versus Decompression” Dong-Kyu Chin Neurospine.2024; 21(4): 1078. CrossRef
Objective The objective of this study is to assess differences in complication profiles between 3-level posterior column osteotomy (PCO) and single-level pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) as both are reported to provide similar degrees of sagittal correction.
Methods The PearlDiver database was queried retrospectively using International Classification of Disease, 9th and 10th edition and Current Procedural Terminology codes to identify patients who underwent PCO or PSO for degenerative spine disease. Patients under age 18 or with history of spinal malignancy, infection, or trauma were excluded. Patients were separated into 2 cohorts, 3-level PCO or single-level PSO, matched at a 1:1 ratio based on age, sex, Elixhauser comorbidity index, and number of fused posterior segments. Thirtyday systemic and procedure-related complications were compared.
Results Matching resulted in 631 patients for each cohort. PCO patients had decreased odds of respiratory (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43–0.82; p = 0.001) and renal complications (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40–0.88; p = 0.009) compared to PSO patients. There was no significant difference in cardiac complications, sepsis, pressure ulcer, dural tear, delirium, neurologic injuries, postoperative hematoma, postoperative anemia, or overall complications.
Conclusion Patients who undergo 3-level PCO have decreased respiratory and renal complications compared to single-level PSO. No differences were found in the other complications studied. Considering both procedures achieve similar sagittal correction, surgeons should be aware that 3-level PCO offers an improved safety profile compared to single-level PSO.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Neurological Complications Following Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF): A Systematic Review Takeshi Fujii, Rakesh Kumar, Jihun Cha, Aiyush Bansal, Rafael Garcia de Oliveira, Philip K. Louie, Venu M. Nemani, Jean-Christophe Leveque, Rajiv K. Sethi Global Spine Journal.2026; 16(1): 734. CrossRef
Anterior Column Realignment Plus Smith–Petersen Osteotomy Versus Smith–Petersen Osteotomy-Only for Adult Spinal Deformity Negin Safari Dehnavi, Faramarz Roohollahi, Sadegh Bagherzadeh, P. Mitchell Johansen, Gersham Rainone, Natalie J. Bales, Anjali Pradhan, Mohsen Rostami, Puya Alikhani Operative Neurosurgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Risk factors for mortality after 3-column osteotomy Jake Carbone, Amit Ratanpal, Anthony K. Chiu, Rohan I. Suresh, Bradley Anderson, Bibhas Amatya, Amil Sahai, Brian Shear, Alexander Ruditsky, Sennay Ghenbot, Louis J. Bivona, Julio J. Jauregui, Daniel L. Cavanaugh, Eugene Y. Koh, Steven C. Ludwig European Spine Journal.2025; 34(2): 782. CrossRef
Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes of 3-column lumbar osteotomies with and without interbody cages for adult spinal deformity Jeffrey P. Mullin, Esteban Quiceno, Mohamed A.R Soliman, Alan H. Daniels, Justin S. Smith, Michael P. Kelly, Christopher P. Ames, Shay Bess, Douglas Burton, Bassel Diebo, Robert K. Eastlack, Richard Hostin, Khaled Kebaish, Han Jo Kim, Eric Klineberg, Virg The Spine Journal.2025; 25(7): 1508. CrossRef
The Application of 3D-Printed Microporous Laminae in Kyphosis Correction Surgery for Ankylosing Spondylitis Chao Li, Hong Li, Xiangning Meng, Beiyu Xu, Yao Zhao, Longtao Qi, Chunde Li, Yu Wang Spine.2025; 50(14): 981. CrossRef
Ponte osteotomies for treatment of spinal deformities: they are not all made equal Luigi Aurelio Nasto, Seyed Hirbod Mousavi Nasab, Angelo Sieczak, Alessandro Cattolico, Paolo Ulisse, Enrico Pola European Spine Journal.2024; 33(7): 2787. CrossRef
Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomies for Surgical Correction of Fixed Sagittal Imbalance: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review Pratheek S. Makineni, Mohamed E. El-Abtah, Joshua R. Porto, Michael P. Steinmetz, Edward C. Benzel Neurosurgery.2024; 95(6): 1223. CrossRef
High incidence of dural tears with 3-column osteotomies: a systematic review of adult spinal deformity surgery literature for the past decade Anna Martin, Jamal Zahir, Nathan Smith, Oluwatodimu Raji, David Nelles, Dimitriy Kondrashov Spine Deformity.2024; 12(5): 1253. CrossRef
What is the learning curve for endoscopic spine surgery? A comprehensive systematic review Justin P. Chan, Thomas Olson, Beshoy Gabriel, Sohaib Hashmi, Hao-Hua Wu, Hansen Bow, Yu-Po Lee, Nitin Bhatia, Michael Oh, Don Y Park The Spine Journal.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Commentary on “The Role and Clinical Outcomes of Endoscopic Spine Surgery of Treating Spinal Metastases; Outcomes of 29 Cases From 8 Countries” Wongthawat Liawrungrueang, Vit Kotheeranurak Neurospine.2023; 20(2): 620. CrossRef
First
Prev
