Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 269

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Review of Current Trends and Controversies

Sengupta, Dilip K., Herkowitz, Harry N.·2005·Spine

Abstract

In Brief Study Design. A literature-based review. Objectives. To review management and controversies and to present authors recommendations. Summary of Background Data. There is considerable controversy regarding indication for surgery, role for decompression alone, and decompression with fusion with or without instrumentation. Methods. Review of English language medical literature. Results. The condition may stabilize itself with the collapse of the disc spaces and osteophytes but may continue to progress in nearly a third of the cases. It may cause predominantly back pain due to segmental instability, or radicular pain/neurogenic claudication secondary to root entrapment or spinal stenosis. When conservative treatment fails, the mainstay of surgical treatment is decompressive laminectomy and fusion, with or without instrumentation. Conclusions. Decompression primarily relieves radicular symptoms and neurogenic claudication whereas fusion primarily relieves back pain by elimination of instability. The goals for instrumentation are to promote fusion and to correct deformity. Fusion has a better long-term outcome than decompression alone. There is evidence that instrumentation improves fusion rate but does not improve clinical outcome in a relatively short-term follow-up. However, outcome of pseudarthrosis cases deteriorates over time and solid fusion produces better long-term outcome. The benefit of instrumentation comes with a price of higher postoperative morbidity and complication rate. Bone morphogenetic proteins are being tried to increase the rate of fusion, without increasing the complication rate, but the cost is prohibitive. More recently, dynamic stabilization with instrumentation but without fusion has been introduced as an alternative treatment. The current trends of surgical treatment and controversies are discussed. In the surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis, fusion provides a better clinical outcome over decompression alone. Instrumentation improves the fusion rate, but not the clinical outcome in short-term follow-up. Pseudarthrosis may produce initial good outcome, which deteriorates over time. Successful fusion produces a better long-term outcome than pseudarthrosis. Bone morphogenetic proteins and dynamic stabilization are newer and promising alternatives.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.brs.0000155579.88537.8e

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Cited by

See all 269

Metadata

Authors
Sengupta, D. K., & Herkowitz, H. N.
Venue
Spine
Published
2005-03
Volume
30
Issue
Supplement
Pages
S71-S81
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001831581
Cited by
269
References
43
FWCI
6.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Review of Current Trends and Controversies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.brs.0000155579.88537.8e
The paper
Sengupta, D. K., & Herkowitz, H. N. (2005). Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Review of Current Trends and Controversies. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000155579.88537.8e

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.