[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Other Articles
January 20, 1945


JAMA. 1945;127(3):137-139. doi:10.1001/jama.1945.02860030009002

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


This study was begun with the thought that fixation of opposing vertebrae resulting from complete removal of an affected disk at the site of the spondylolisthesis would produce a much simpler and more effective fusion of the spine than the customary fusion with bone grafts. The observations from the series of patients operated on has led to unexpected conclusions; i. e. (1) that the spondylolisthesis is usually responsible for only part and at times none of the symptoms, (2) that in most (not all) instances it is not the spondylolisthesis or even the disk at its site that causes the symptoms but rather another disk or disks and (3) that therefore cure usually depends more on removal of the other disk or disks than on the one at the site of the spondylolisthesis, though this too must be extirpated.

The principal reasons for these seemingly paradoxical conclusions are that: 1.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview