Biomechanical Stability Afforded by Unilateral Versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation with and without Interbody Support Using Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of postoperative outcomes

PURPOSE

To determine of the impact of ALIF with minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) on perioperative outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and the rates of fusion, subsidence, and adjacent segment stenosis.

METHODS

All adult patients who underwent one-level ALIF with UPSF or BPSF at an academic institution between 2015 and 2022 were retrospectively identified. Postoperative outcomes including length of hospital stay (LOS), wound complications, readmissions, and revisions were determined. The rates of fusion, screw loosening, adjacent segment stenosis, and subsidence were assessed on one-year postoperative CT. Lumbar alignment including lumbar lordosis, L4-S1 lordosis, regional lordosis, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, and sacral slope were assessed on standing x-rays at preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final postoperative follow-up. Univariate and multivariate analysis compared outcomes across posterior fixation groups.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were included (27 UPSF, 33 BPSF). Patients with UPSF were significantly younger (p = 0.011). Operative time was significantly greater in the BPSF group in univariate (p < 0.001) and multivariate analysis (ß=104.1, p < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss, LOS, lordosis, pelvic parameters, fusion rate, subsidence, screw loosening, adjacent segment stenosis, and revision rate did not differ significantly between fixation groups. Though sacral slope (p = 0.037) was significantly greater in the BPSF group, fixation type was not a significant predictor on regression.

CONCLUSIONS

ALIF with UPSF relative to BPSF predicted decreased operative time but was not a significant predictor of postoperative outcomes. ALIF with UPSF can be considered to increase operative efficiency without compromising construct stability.

Short-Term Comparison Between Unilateral Versus Bilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in Short-Level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Prospective Randomized Study

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES

No prospective studies have directly compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of unilateral vs bilateral instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). We compared the short-term radiographic, clinical outcomes, and some complications of the unilateral percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) (UPS) vs bilateral PPS (BPS) fixation in short-level spinal fusion with LLIF for LDD.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled study of 33 patients who underwent UPS or BPS fixation after LLIF for LDD; 18 patients were assigned to the UPS group and 15 patients to the BPS group. Clinical outcomes, complication rates, and fusion rates were assessed.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in age, sex, preoperative diagnosis, and level of surgery. Blood loss, length of hospital stay, and numeric rating scale score one year after surgery did not differ between groups. The operative time was longer in the BPS than UPS group (120.2 vs 88.8 min, respectively; P = .029). Both groups showed improvement in disc height and dural sac in the immediate postoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, which did not differ significantly between groups. The subsidence grade and fusion rate did not differ, but cage subsidence was more severe in the UPS than BPS group.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral and bilateral PPS fixation after LLIF yielded similar short-term clinical and radiological outcomes. However, severe cage subsidence was more common in the UPS group, which suggests that BPS fixation after LLIF may be a better choice over the long term.

Biomechanical Comparison of Unilateral and Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation after Multilevel Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Human Cadaveric Biomechanical Study.

OBJECTIVES

Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF) utilizing a wide cage has been reported as having favorable biomechanical characteristics. We examine the biomechanical stability of unilateral pedicle screw and rod fixation after multilevel LLIF utilizing 26 mm wide cages compared to bilateral fixation.

METHODS

Eight human cadaveric specimens of L1-L5 were included. Specimens were attached to a universal testing machine (MTS 30/G). Three-dimensional specimen range of motion (ROM) was recorded using an optical motion-tracking device. Specimens were tested in 3 conditions: 1) intact, 2) L1-L5 LLIF (4 levels) with unilateral rod, 3) L1-L5 LLIF with bilateral rods.

RESULTS

From the intact condition, LLIF with unilateral rod decreased flexion-extension by 77%, lateral bending by 53%, and axial rotation by 26%. In LLIF with bilateral rods, flexion-extension decreased by 83%, lateral bending by 64%, and axial rotation by 34%. Comparing unilateral and bilateral fixation, LLIF with bilateral rods reduced ROM by a further 23% in flexion-extension, 25% in lateral bending, and 11% in axial rotation. The difference was statistically significant in flexion-extension and lateral bending (P < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable decreases in ROM were observed after multilevel (4-level) LLIF utilizing 26 mm cages supplemented with both unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws and rods. The addition of bilateral fixation provides a 10-25% additional decrease in ROM. These results can inform surgeons of the incremental biomechanical benefit when considering unilateral or bilateral posterior fixation after multilevel LLIF.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion combined with unilateral versus bilateral posterior fixation in patients with osteoporosis

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with unilateral (UPSF) and bilateral pedicle screw internal fixation (BPSF) in patients with osteoporosis.

METHODS

Clinical data of 57 patients who underwent single-segment OLIF surgery with a clear diagnosis of osteoporosis from December 2018 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, of which 27 patients underwent OLIF + UPSF and 30 patients underwent OLIF + BPSF. Surgical technique-related indexes were recorded, including operative time, operative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay; clinical outcome-related indexes included postoperative complications, Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at preoperative, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 12 months postoperative follow-up; and imaging outcome-related indexes included the measurement of preoperative and postoperative segmental lordosis (SL), and observation of the degree of cage subsidence and bone graft fusion.

RESULTS

The surgery was successfully performed in 57 patients, and there was no statistical difference in operative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay between UPSF group and BPSF group (P > 0.05). In terms of operative time, there was a significant difference (UPSF group: 92.30 ± 11.03 min, BPSF group: 119.67 ± 16.41, P < 0.05). Postoperative VAS and ODI scores exhibited significant improvement (P < 0.05). At the 12 months postoperative follow-up, the VAS and ODI scores in the BPSF group were significantly better than those in the UPS group (P < 0.05). Compared with the preoperative images, the SL was significantly improved in both groups after surgery (P < 0.05). At 6 months postoperatively, the fusion rate in the UPSF group was significantly lower than that in the BPSF group (P < 0.05). At 1 year postoperatively, the fusion rate in the UPSF group was not significantly different from that in the BPSF group (P > 0.05). At 1 year postoperatively, the rate and degree of cage subsidence was higher in the UPSF group than in the BPSF group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In the long term, OLIF combined with bilateral posterior fixation applied to the osteoporosis patients is superior to OLIF surgery combined with unilateral posterior fixation in terms of clinical and imaging outcomes. It is effective in improving pain relief and functional improvement, accelerating bone graft fusion, and reducing cage subsidence compared with UPSF.

Simultaneous Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery and Unilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for Spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical and radiological efficacy of a combine of lateral single screw-rod and unilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (LSUP) for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in the treatment of spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

Sixty-two consecutive patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent minimally invasive (MIS)-TLIF with bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) or LLIF-LSUP were retrospectively studied. Segmental lordosis angle (SLA), lumbar lordosis angle (LLA), disc height (DH), slipping percentage, the cross-sectional areas (CSA) of the thecal sac, screw placement accuracy, fusion rate and foraminal height (FH) were used to evaluate radiographic changes postoperatively. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to evaluate the clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent LLIF-LSUP showed shorter operating time, less length of hospital stay and lower blood loss than MIS-TLIF. No statistical difference was found between the 2 groups in screw placement accuracy, overall complications, VAS, and ODI. Compared with MIS-TLIF-BPS, LLIF-LSUP had a significant improvement in sagittal parameters including DH, FH, LLA, and SLA. The CSA of MIS-TLIF-BPS was significantly increased than that of LLIF-LSUP. The fusion rate of LLIF-LSUP was significantly higher than that of MIS-TLIF-BPS at the follow-up of 3 months postoperatively, but there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups at the follow-up of 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months.

CONCLUSION

The overall clinical outcomes and complications of LLIF-LSUP were comparable to that of MIS-TLIF-BPS in this series. Compared with MIS-TLIF-BPS, LLIF-LSUP for lumbar spondylolisthesis represents a significantly shorter operating time, hospital stay and lower blood loss, and demonstrates better radiological outcomes to maintain lumbar lordosis, and reveal an overwhelming superiority in the early fusion rate.

Successful outcomes of unilateral vs bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar interbody fusion: A meta-analysis with evidence grading

BACKGROUND

Whether it’s better to adopt unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) fixation or to use bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) one for lumbar degenerative diseases is still controversially undetermined.

AIM

To make a comparison between UPS and BPS fixation as to how they work efficaciously and safely in patients suffering from lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

We have searched a lot in the databases through 2020 with index terms such as “unilateral pedicle screw fixation” and “bilateral pedicle screw fixation.” Only randomized controlled trials and some prospective cohort studies could be found, yielding 15 studies. The intervention was unilateral pedicle screw fixation; Primarily We’ve got outcomes of complications and fusion rates. Secondarily, we’ve achieved outcomes regarding total blood loss, operative time, as well as length of stay. Softwares were installed and utilized for subgroup analysis, analyzing forest plots, sensitivity, heterogeneity, forest plots, publication bias, and risk of bias.

RESULTS

Fifteen previous cases of study including 992 participants have been involved in our meta-analysis. UPS had slightly lower effects on fusion rate [relative risk (RR) = 0.949, 95%CI: 0.910 to 0.990, P = 0.015], which contributed mostly to this meta-analysis, and similar complication rates (RR = 1.140, 95%CI: 0.792 to 1.640, P = 0.481), Δ visual analog scale [standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.178, 95%CI: -0.021 to 0.378, P = 0.080], and Δ Oswestry disability index (SMD = -0.254, 95%CI: -0.820 to 0.329, P = 0.402). In contrast, an obvious difference has been observed in Δ Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score (SMD = 0.305, 95%CI: 0.046 to 0.563, P = 0.021), total blood loss (SMD = -1.586, 95%CI: -2.182 to -0.990, P = 0.000), operation time (SMD = -2.831, 95%CI: -3.753 to -1.909, P = 0.000), and length of hospital stay (SMD = -0.614, 95%CI: -1.050 to -0.179, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Bilateral fixation is more effective than unilateral fixation regarding fusion rate after lumbar interbody fusion. However, JOA, operation time, total blood loss, as well as length of stay were improved for unilateral fixation.

Single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion: an overview of terminology, concepts, rationale and the current evidence base

PURPOSE

To provide definitions and a conceptual framework for single position surgery (SPS) applied to circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine.

METHODS

Narrative literature review and experts' opinion.

RESULTS

Two major limitations of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been (a) a perceived need to reposition the patient to the prone position for posterior fixation, and (b) the lack of a robust solution for fusion at the L5/S1 level. Recently, two strategies for performing single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion have been described. The combination of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position (LALIF), LLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (pPSF) in the lateral decubitus position is known as lateral single-position surgery (LSPS). Prone LLIF (PLLIF) involves transpsoas LLIF done in the prone position that is more familiar for surgeons to then implant pedicle screw fixation. This can be referred to as prone single-position surgery (PSPS). In this review, we describe the evolution of and rationale for single-position spinal surgery. Pertinent studies validating LSPS and PSPS are reviewed and future questions regarding the future of these techniques are posed. Lastly, we present an algorithm for single-position surgery that describes the utility of LALIF, LLIF and PLLIF in the treatment of patients requiring AP lumbar fusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Single position surgery in circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine includes posterior fixation in association with any of the following: lateral position LLIF, prone position LLIF, lateral position ALIF, and their combination (lateral position LLIF+ALIF). Preliminary studies have validated these methods.

Effects of osteoporosis on the biomechanics of various supplemental fixations co-applied with oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF): a finite element analysis

Background

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is an important surgical modality for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease. Various supplemental fixations can be co-applied with OLIF, increasing OLIF stability and reducing complications. However, it is unclear whether osteoporosis affects the success of supplemental fixations; therefore, this study analyzed the effects of osteoporosis on various supplemental fixations co-applied with OLIF.

Methods

We developed and validated an L3-S1 finite element (FE) model; we assigned different material properties to each component and established models of the osteoporotic and normal bone lumbar spine. We explored the outcomes of OLIF combined with each of five supplemental fixations: standalone OLIF; OLIF with lateral plate fixation (OLIF + LPF); OLIF with translaminar facet joint fixation and unilateral pedicle screw fixation (OLIF + TFJF + UPSF); OLIF with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (OLIF + UPSF); and OLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (OLIF + BPSF). Under the various working conditions, we calculated the ranges of motion (ROMs) of the normal bone and osteoporosis models, the maximum Mises stresses of the fixation instruments (MMSFIs), and the average Mises stresses on cancellous bone (AMSCBs).

Results

Compared with the normal bone OLIF model, no demonstrable change in any segmental ROM was apparent. The MMSFIs increased in all five osteoporotic OLIF models. In the OLIF + TFJF + UPSF model, the MMSFIs increased sharply in forward flexion and extension. The stress changes of the OLIF + UPSF, OLIF + BPSF, and OLIF + TFJF + UPSF models were similar; all stresses trended upward. The AMSCBs decreased in all five osteoporotic OLIF models during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The average stress change of cancellous bone was most obvious under extension. The AMSCBs of the five OLIF models decreased by 14%, 23.44%, 21.97%, 40.56%, and 22.44% respectively.

Conclusions

For some supplemental fixations, the AMSCBs were all reduced and the MMSFIs were all increased in the osteoporotic model, compared with the OLIF model of normal bone. Therefore, the biomechanical performance of an osteoporotic model may be inferior to the biomechanical performance of a normal model for the same fixation method; in some instances, it may increase the risks of fracture and internal fixation failure.

Biomechanical Characterization of Unilateral and Bilateral Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Constructs

Objectives

To compare the biomechanical stability of two-level PLIF constructs with unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixations.

Methods

Six cadaveric lumbar segments were evaluated to assess biomechanical stability in response to pure moment loads applied in flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). Each specimen was tested in six sequential configurations: (1) intact baseline; (2) facetectomy; (3) unilateral pedicle screws (UPS); (4) bilateral pedicle screws (BPS); (5) unilateral pedicle screws and cage (UPSC); and (6) bilateral pedicle screws and cage (BPSC).

Results

Significant reductions in motion were observed when comparing all instrumented conditions to the intact and facetectomy stages of testing. No significant differences in motion between UPS, BPS, UPSC, or BPSC were observed in response to FE range of motion (ROM) or neutral zone (NZ). ROM was significantly higher in the UPS stage compared to BPS in response to LB and AT loading. ROM was significantly higher in UPSC compared to BPSC in response to LB loading only. Similarly, NZ was significantly higher in UPSC compared to BPSC in response to only LB loading. In response to AT loading, ROM was significantly higher during UPS than BPS or BPSC; however, no significant differences were noted between UPSC and BPSC with respect to AT ROM or NZ.

Conclusion

BPS fixation is biomechanically superior to UPS fixation in multilevel PLIF constructs. This was most pronounced during both LB loading. Interbody support did contribute significantly to immediate stability.

Computational modeling of lumbar disc degeneration before and after spinal fusion

BACKGROUND

Advancing age and degeneration frequently lead to low back pain, which is the most prevalent musculoskeletal disorder worldwide. Degenerative changes in intervertebral discs and musculo-ligamentous incapacity to compensate sagittal imbalance are typically amongst the sources of instability, with spinal fusion techniques being the main treatment options to relieve pain. The aims of this work were to: (i) assess the link between ligament degeneration and spinal instability by determining the role of each ligament per movement, (ii) evaluate the impact of disc height reduction in degenerative changes, and (iii) unveil the most advantageous type of posterior fixation in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion to prevent adjacent disc degeneration.

METHODS

Two L3-L5 finite element models were developed, being the first in healthy condition and the second having reduced L4-L5 height. Different degrees of degeneration were tested, combined with different fixation configurations for Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

FINDINGS

Facet capsular ligament and anterior longitudinal ligament were the most influential ligaments for spinal stability, particularly with increasing degeneration and disc height reduction. Pre-existent degeneration had lower influence than the fusion procedure for the risk of adjacent disc degeneration, being the highest stability and minimal degeneration achieved with bilateral fixation. Right unilateral fixation was more suited to reduce disc stress than left unilateral fixation.

INTERPRETATION

Bilateral fixation is the best option to stabilize the spinal segment, but unilateral right fixation may suffice. This has direct implications for clinical practice, and the extension to a population-based study will allow for more efficient fusion surgeries.

Minimally invasive injectable lumbar interbody fusion with mineralized collagen-modified PMMA bone cement: A new animal model

This study was to develop a feasible and safe animal model for minimally invasive injectable lumbar interbody fusion using a novel biomaterial, mineralized collagen-polymethylmethacrylate bone cement (MC-PMMA), with unilateral pedicle screw fixation in an in vivo goat model. Eight goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) were divided into three groups: MC-PMMA, unmodified commercial-polymethylmethacrylate bone cement (UC-PMMA), and a control group (titanium cage filled with autogenous bone, TC-AB). Each group of goats was treated with minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion at the L3/L4 and L5/L6 disc spaces (injected for MC-PMMA and UC-PMMA, implanted for TC-AB). The pedicle screws were inserted at the L3, L4, L5, and L6 vertebrae, respectively, and fixed on the left side. The characteristics of osteogenesis and bone growth were assessed at the third and the sixth month, respectively. The methods of evaluation included the survival of each animal, X-ray imaging, and 256-layer spiral computed tomography (256-CT) scanning, imaged with three-dimensional microfocus computed tomography (micro-CT), and histological analysis. The results showed that PMMA bone cement can be extruded smoothly after doping MC, the MC-PMMA integrates better with bone than the UC-PMMA, and all goats recovered after surgery without nerve damage. After 3 and 6 months, the implants were stable. New trabecular bone was observed in the TC-AB group. In the UC-PMMA group a thick fibrous capsule had formed around the implants. The MC-PMMA was observed to have perfect osteogenesis and bone ingrowth to adjacent bone surface. Minimally invasive injectable lumbar interbody fusion using MC-PMMA bone cement was shown to have profound clinical value, and the MC-PMMA showed potential application prospects.

Biomechanical Evaluation of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Various Fixation Options: A Finite Element Analysis

Objective

The aim of the present study was to clarify the biomechanical properties of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) using different fixation methods in normal and osteoporosis spines.

Methods

Normal and osteoporosis intact finite element models of L₁–S₁ were established based on CT images of a healthy male volunteer. Group A was the normal models and group B was the osteoporosis model. Each group included four subgroups: (i) intact; (ii) stand‐alone cage (Cage); (iii) cage with lateral plate and two lateral screws (LP); and (iv) cage with bilateral pedicle screws and rods (BPSR). The L₃–L₄ level was defined as the surgical segment. After validating the normal intact model, compressive load of 400 N and torsional moment of 10 Nm were applied to the superior surface of L₂ to simulate flexion, extension, left bending, right bending, left rotation, and right rotation motions. Surgical segmental range of motion (ROM), cage stress, endplate stress, supplemental fixation stress, and stress distribution were analyzed in each group.

Results

Cage provided the minimal reduction of ROM among all motions (normal, 82.30%–98.81%; osteoporosis, 92.04%–97.29% of intact model). BPSR demonstrated the maximum reduction of ROM (normal, 43.94%–61.13%; osteoporosis, 45.61%–62.27% of intact model). The ROM of LP was between that of Cage and BPSR (normal, 63.25%–79.72%; osteoporosis, 70%–87.15% of intact model). Cage had the minimal cage stress and endplate stress. With the help of LP and BPSR fixation, cage stress and endplate stress were significantly reduced in all motions, both in normal and osteoporosis finite element models. However, BPSR had more advantages. For cage stress, BPSR was at least 75.73% less than that of Cage in the normal model, and it was at least 80.10% less than that of Cage in the osteoporosis model. For endplate stress, BPSR was at least 75.98% less than that of Cage in the normal model, and it was at least 78.06% less than that of Cage in the osteoporosis model. For supplemental fixation stress, BPSR and LP were much less than the yield strength in all motions in the two groups. In addition, the comparison between the two groups showed that the ROM, cage stress, endplate stress, and supplemental fixation stress in the normal model were less than in the osteoporosis model when using the same fixation option of OLIF.

Conclusion

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion with BPSR provided the best biomechanical stability both in normal and osteoporosis spines. The biomechanical properties of the normal spine were better than those of the osteoporosis spine when using the same fixation option of OLIF.

Single-position prone lateral approach: cadaveric feasibility study and early clinical experience

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a useful minimally invasive technique for achieving anterior interbody fusion and preserving or restoring lumbar lordosis. However, achieving circumferential fusion via posterior instrumentation after an LLIF can be challenging, requiring either repositioning the patient or placing pedicle screws in the lateral position. Here, the authors explore an alternative single-position approach: LLIF in the prone lateral (PL) position.

METHODS

A cadaveric feasibility study was performed using 2 human cadaveric specimens. A retrospective 2-center early clinical series was performed for patients who had undergone a minimally invasive lateral procedure in the prone position between August 2019 and March 2020. Case duration, retractor time, electrophysiological thresholds, implant size, screw accuracy, and complications were recorded. Early postoperative radiographic outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

A PL LLIF was successfully performed in 2 cadavers without causing injury to a vessel or the bowel. No intraoperative subsidence was observed. In the clinical series, 12 patients underwent attempted PL surgery, although 1 case was converted to standard lateral positioning. Thus, 11 patients successfully underwent PL LLIF (89%) across 14 levels: L2–3 (2 of 14 [14%]), L3–4 (6 of 14 [43%]), and L4–5 (6 of 14 [43%]). For the 11 PL patients, the mean (± SD) age was 61 ± 16 years, mean BMI was 25.8 ± 4.8, and mean retractor time per level was 15 ± 6 minutes with the longest retractor time at L2–3 and the shortest at L4–5. No intraoperative subsidence was noted on routine postoperative imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing single-position lateral transpsoas interbody fusion with the patient prone is anatomically feasible, and in an early clinical experience, it appeared safe and reproducible. Prone positioning for a lateral approach presents an exciting opportunity for streamlining surgical access to the lumbar spine and facilitating more efficient surgical solutions with potential clinical and economic advantages.

Radiological evaluation of fusion patterns after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: institutional case series

INTRODUCTION

There is no consensus on how to evaluate segmental fusion after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Bone bridges (BB) between two contiguous vertebra are reported as pathognomonic criteria for anterior fusion. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no radiological investigations on zygapophyseal joints (ZJ) status after LLIF. The aim of this radiological study was to investigate the different fusion patterns after LLIF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective single-centre radiological study. Patients who underwent LLIF and posterior percutaneous screw fixation for degenerative spondylolisthesis, on a single lumbar level, were considered for eligibility. Complete radiological data and a minimum follow-up of 1 year were the inclusion criteria. Intervertebral BB were investigated for evaluating anterior fusion and ZJ ankylotic degeneration was evaluated according Pathria et al., as a matter of proof of posterior fusion and segmental immobilization.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients were finally included in the present study. Twelve months after surgery, intervertebral BB were recognized in 58 segments (78.3%), whereas ZJ Pathria grade was I in 8 (10.8%) patients, II in 15 (20.3%) and III in 51 (68.9%) that were considered posteriorly fused. The overlapping rate between anteriorly and posteriorly fused segments was 72.4% (42 segments), whereas 10 (13.5%) did not achieve any fusion, anterior or posterior, and 6 (8.1%) were posteriorly fused only.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results seem to suggest that anterior fusion is not sufficient to achieve segmental immobilization. Further properly designed investigations are needed to investigate eventual clinical-radiological correlations.

Clinical and radiographic analysis of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented one-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a widely applied and useful procedure for spinal surgeries. However, posterior fixation has not yet been decided. We compared the radiographic and clinical outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented one-level LLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 100 patients, who underwent unilateral (group U) or bilateral (group B) instrumented one-level LLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. Forty-one patients in group U were undergoing unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation, and 59 patients in group B were undergoing bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation. Clinical characteristic and demographic data before surgery were compared. The intraoperative data, including operative time with changes in positions, intraoperative blood loss, and X-ray exposure time, as well as the perioperative data, including postoperative hospital stay and clinical and radiographic data were compared. As a result, Group U required a significantly shorter operating time than group B. The subsidence grade and fusion rates exhibited no significant differences in the postoperative radiographic evaluation. Group U had better results in clinical assessments than group B. However, group U required more additional surgeries owing to complications.