{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,22]],"date-time":"2026-07-22T10:05:41Z","timestamp":1784714741267,"version":"3.55.0"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.","content-domain":{"domain":["eurekaselect.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["CMIR"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,14]]},"abstract":"\n Introduction:<\/jats:title>\n Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a prevalent degenerative condition that severely impairs mobility and quality of life in older adults. Decompressive\nsurgery, often combined with spinal arthrodesis, remains the cornerstone of treatment. However, the role of instrumentation, particularly the use of\ninterbody cages, remains debated. Instrumented arthrodesis may enhance fusion and segmental stability but is associated with higher morbidity,\nwhile uninstrumented techniques are less invasive but may compromise long-term fusion. This study compared clinical, radiographic, and surgical\noutcomes of three approaches: decompression with instrumented arthrodesis using interbody cages, decompression with instrumented arthrodesis\nwithout cages, and decompression with uninstrumented arthrodesis<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Materials and Methods:<\/jats:title>\n In this prospective comparative study, 74 patients with LSS underwent one of the three procedures at a spine-specialized center and had \u226524\nmonths of follow-up. Patients were stratified into Group 1 (n = 30), instrumented arthrodesis with interbody cages; Group 2 (n = 20), instrumented\narthrodesis without cages; and Group 3 (n = 24), uninstrumented arthrodesis. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index\n(ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Short Form-36 (SF-36), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for lumbar and radicular pain.\nRadiographic assessments included sagittal balance, lumbar lordosis, and fusion, which were carried out by two independent radiologists.\nStatistical analyses were performed using chi-square tests, paired and unpaired t-tests, Pearson correlations, and logistic regression.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Results:<\/jats:title>\n All groups showed significant improvement in ODI, RMDQ, SF-36, and VAS scores (p < 0.001). Postoperative sagittal balance improved\nsignificantly in Groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.001), whereas changes in lumbar lordosis were not significant (p = 0.663). Fusion rates were highest in\nGroup 2 (95%) and lowest in Group 3 (75%; p = 0.018). Complications were most frequent in Group 3 (20.8%), largely incidental durotomies and\nwound infections. Reoperations were most common in Group 1 (23%), predominantly due to adjacent segment disease and implant failure.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Discussion:<\/jats:title>\n Despite comparable functional improvements, the three strategies demonstrated distinct radiographic and surgical profiles. Instrumented\narthrodesis without cages achieved superior fusion and sagittal correction with fewer complications, whereas uninstrumented arthrodesis, though\neffective for symptom relief, carried higher intraoperative complication rates. Cage-assisted fusion did not improve clinical or radiographic\noutcomes and was associated with more reoperations, particularly due to adjacent segment disease. These findings support tailoring\ninstrumentation to patient comorbidities, stability requirements, and the need for anterior column support.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>\n \n Conclusion:<\/jats:title>\n All three surgical techniques improved function and pain in LSS patients. Instrumented arthrodesis without interbody cages provided the most\nfavorable balance between fusion success and complication risk. Cages should be reserved for selected patients requiring sagittal realignment or\nforaminal restoration. Given the increased reoperation burden associated with instrumentation, surgical planning should be individualized,\nprioritizing stability, complication avoidance, and patient-specific risk factors, such as bone quality and comorbidities.<\/jats:p>\n <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.2174\/0115734056415024251126104233","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,22]],"date-time":"2026-07-22T09:46:01Z","timestamp":1784713561000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2174\/bsp_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Surgical Outcomes of Instrumented and Uninstrumented Arthrodesis for\nLumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Comparative Radiographic and Clinical Study"],"prefix":"10.2174","volume":"22","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-6625-6111","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Carla-Lisette","family":"Garcia-Ramos","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitaci\u00f3n \u201cLuis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra\u201d, Cirugia de Columna, 14389, Mexico City, Mexico"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0008-9264-9507","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Julio-Roberto","family":"Perez-Oliva","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitaci\u00f3n \u201cLuis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra\u201d, Cirugia de Columna, 14389, Mexico City, Mexico"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0009-9188-6356","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Carlos-Alberto","family":"Carreon-Cerda","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitaci\u00f3n \u201cLuis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra\u201d, Cirugia de Columna, 14389, Mexico City, Mexico"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0002-7372-9209","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Diana-Laura","family":"Hernandez-Moctezuma","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitaci\u00f3n \u201cLuis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra\u201d, Cirugia de Columna, 14389, Mexico City, Mexico"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-7116-5289","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Ernesto","family":"Roldan-Valadez","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitaci\u00f3n \u201cLuis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra\u201d, Division of Research, 14389, Mexico City, Mexico"},{"name":"Department of Radiology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), 119992, Moscow, Russia"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-0630-2662","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Baron","family":"Zarate-Kalfopulos","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitaci\u00f3n \u201cLuis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra\u201d, Cirugia de Columna, 14389, Mexico City, Mexico"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-2624-8122","authenticated-orcid":true,"given":"Alejandro","family":"Reyes-Sanchez","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitaci\u00f3n \u201cLuis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra\u201d, Cirugia de Columna, 14389, Mexico City, Mexico"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"965","container-title":["Current Medical Imaging Formerly Current Medical Imaging Reviews"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.eurekaselect.com\/article\/download?doi=10.2174\/0115734056415024251126104233","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.eurekaselect.com\/256181\/article","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.eurekaselect.com\/article\/download?doi=10.2174\/0115734056415024251126104233","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,22]],"date-time":"2026-07-22T09:46:10Z","timestamp":1784713570000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.eurekaselect.com\/256181\/article"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,14]]},"references-count":0,"alternative-id":["LiveAll1"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2174\/0115734056415024251126104233","relation":{},"ISSN":["1573-4056"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1573-4056","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,14]]},"assertion":[{"value":"Peer Reviewed","order":0,"name":"review_status","label":"Review Status","group":{"name":"peer_review_details","label":"Peer Review Details"}},{"value":"Double blind","order":1,"name":"review_process","label":"Review Process","group":{"name":"peer_review_details","label":"Peer Review Details"}},{"value":"Checked with iThenticate","order":0,"name":"screening_status","label":"Screening Status","group":{"name":"plagiarism_screening","label":"Plagiarism Screening"}},{"value":"2025-05-15","order":0,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2025-09-08","order":1,"name":"revised","label":"Revised","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2025-09-24","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2026-07-14","order":3,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}