Outcome following unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center randomized prospective study

Robotic endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A single institution case series

Background

Robotic-assisted, endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (RE-TLIF) is a promising, minimally invasive surgical option for degenerative lumbar spondylosis/spondylolisthesis; however, outcomes data and efficacy are limited, especially in multilevel disease. Here, we present the first reported series of patients that underwent either single or multilevel RE-TLIF.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed on 23 consecutive patients who underwent a single level or multilevel RE-TLIF by a single surgeon. Variables included demographics, perioperative results, pain scores, and functional outcome scores.

Results

Eighteen patients (78.3 %) underwent single level RE-TLIF and 5 patients (21.7 %) underwent multilevel RE-TLIF. The median reduction of visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain (LBP) of all subjects was 6 (IQR = 4.5, 6.5) with no significant difference between single level and multilevel RE-TLIF (p = 0.565). The median reduction of VAS for leg pain of all subjects 7 (IQR = 6, 8) with no significant difference between single level and multilevel RE-TLIF (p = 0.702). Median blood loss was 25 cc (IQR = 25, 25) and 50 cc (IQR = 25, 100) for single and multilevel RE-TLIF, respectively (p = 0.025), whereas median length of stay was 1 (IQR = 1, 1; mean = 1.0 ± 00.18) days and 1 (IQR = 1, 2; mean = 1.4 ± 00.54) days, respectively (p = 0.042). One major complication was observed requiring reoperation for demineralized bone matrix migration resulting in an L5 radiculopathy.

Conclusions

Single and multi-level RE-TLIF appears to be a safe and efficacious approach with comparable outcomes to open and other minimally invasive approaches. Additionally, we observed favorable accuracy in robot-assisted pedicle screw, endoscope, and interbody device placement.

Is unilateral pedicle screw fixation as effective as bilateral pedicle screw fixation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) is comparable to bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

Up to September 2022, established electronic literature databases including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English that compared the efficacy of UPSF versus BPSF in TLIF were included. The methodological quality was evaluated, relevant data was extracted, and suitable meta-analysis was carried out. Data of fusion rate, complications, cage migration, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), total blood loss (TBL), operation time, and hospital stay were extracted and analyzed. Pooled mean differences and risk ratio (RR) along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for the results.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs including 614 patients (UPSF = 294, BPSF = 320) were included in our meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in terms of fusion rate, VAS (VAS-BP and VAS-LP), ODI, complications, or hospital stay between UPSF and BPSF groups (P > 0.05, respectively). The UPSF group clearly had the advantage of less blood loss (SMD = -2.99, 95% CI [-4.54, -1.45], P = 0.0001) and operation time (SMD = -2.05, 95% CI [-3.10, -1.00], P = 0.0001). However, UPSF increased cage migration more than BPSF (10.7% vs 4.8%, RR = 2.23, 95% CI [1.07, 4.65],  P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

According to the findings of this meta-analysis, UPSF is just as effective as BPSF in TLIF and may reduce blood loss and operation time. Nevertheless, UPSF may result in more cage migration than BPSF.

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.

Safety and efficacy of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of unilateral vs. bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) for lumbar degenerative diseases.

Methods

Electronic databases including PubMed, Web of science, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO were searched by computer. The deadline was set for June 1, 2022. This study included all high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective clinical controlled studies (PRO), and retrospective studies (Retro) that compared unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Revman5.3 software was used for meta-analysis after two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the study.

Results

Fourteen studies with a total of 1,086 patients were included. Compared with BPSF, unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) has shorter operation time and hospital time, and less blood loss and operation cost, operation time [SMD = −1.75, 95% CI (−2.46 to −1.03), P < 0.00001], hospital time [SMD = −1.10, 95% CI (−1.97 to −0.22), P = 0.01], Blood loss [SMD = −1.62, 95% CI (−2.42 to −0.82), P < 0.0001], operation cost [SMD = −14.03, 95% CI (−20.08 to −7.98), P < 0.00001], the ODI after bilateral pedicle screw fixation was lower, and the degree of lumbar dysfunction was lighter, [SMD = 0.19, 95% CI (0.05–0.33), P = 0.007], better fusion effect, fusion rate [RR=0.95, 95% CI (0.91–1.00), P = 0.04]. VAS-Low back pain [SMD = 0.07, 95% CI (−0.07–0.20), P = 0.35], VAS-Leg pain [SMD = 0.18, 95% CI (−0.00–0.36), P = 0.05], SF-36 [SMD = 0.00, 95% CI (−0.30–0.30), P = 1.00], complications rate [RR = 0.94, 95% CI (0.9154–1.63), P = 0.82], the overall difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Currently limited evidence suggests that UPSF significantly reduces blood loss, significantly shortens the operative time and hospital stay, and reduces blood loss and costs. After BPSF, the ODI was lower, the degree of lumbar spine dysfunction was lower, and the fusion rate was significantly higher. The VAS, SF-36, and complications scores of the two groups were comparable, and there was no significant clinical difference.

Unilateral versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Instrumented Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in a Single Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Background The study aims to assess the efficiency, safety and outcome of unilateral pedicle screw fixation with TLIF (Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) vs bilateral pedicle screw fixation with TLIF in cases of single level spondylolisthesis by comparing clinical, functional outcome and the complication rates. Methods We prospectively collected demographics and clinical data of the patients with surgically treated single level lumbar spondylolisthesis grade 1 (n=60) with follow up and comparison between clinical/functional outcomes and complication rates between January 2020 and January 2021 at Cairo University hospitals. We allocated the patients with the unilateral pedicle screw fixation with TLIF as group A and the patients with the bilateral pedicle screw fixation with TLIF as group B. Results Clinical outcome showed statistical significance between Group A and Group B (P-value < 0.001); Functional outcome (using Oswestry’s disability index) between group A and B also showed statistical significance (P-value < 0.001) in favor of group B. Complications in group A was higher especially cage migration in 26.7% of cases with p-value of 0.026 while it was only present in 3.3% of the group B cases. Conclusion We concluded that the bilateral approach showed a statistically significant better clinically/functional outcomes with lower rates of complication in comparison with the unilateral approach.

The minimally invasive interbody selection algorithm for spinal deformity

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for spinal deformity uses interbody techniques for correction, indirect decompression, and arthrodesis. Selection criteria for choosing a particular interbody approach are lacking. The authors created the minimally invasive interbody selection algorithm (MIISA) to provide a framework for rational decision-making in MIS for deformity.

METHODS

A retrospective data set of circumferential MIS (cMIS) for adult spinal deformity (ASD) collected over a 5-year period was analyzed by level in the lumbar spine to identify surgeon preferences and evaluate segmental lordosis outcomes. These data were used to inform a Delphi session of minimally invasive deformity surgeons from which the algorithm was created. The algorithm leads to 1 of 4 interbody approaches: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), anterior column release (ACR), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Preoperative and 2-year postoperative radiographic parameters and clinical outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Eleven surgeons completed 100 cMISs for ASD with 338 interbody devices, with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The type of interbody approach used at each level from L1 to S1 was recorded. The MIISA was then created with substantial agreement. The surgeons generally preferred LLIF for L1-2 (91.7%), L2-3 (85.2%), and L3-4 (80.7%). ACR was most commonly performed at L3-4 (8.4%) and L2-3 (6.2%). At L4-5, LLIF (69.5%), TLIF (15.9%), and ALIF (9.8%) were most commonly utilized. TLIF and ALIF were the most selected approaches at L5-S1 (61.4% and 38.6%, respectively). Segmental lordosis at each level varied based on the approach, with greater increases reported using ALIF, especially at L4-5 (9.2°) and L5-S1 (5.3°). A substantial increase in lordosis was achieved with ACR at L2-3 (10.9°) and L3-4 (10.4°). Lateral interbody arthrodesis without the use of an ACR did not generally result in significant lordosis restoration. There were statistically significant improvements in lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence-LL mismatch, coronal Cobb angle, and Oswestry Disability Index at the 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the MIISA provides consistent guidance for surgeons who plan to perform MIS for deformity. For L1-4, the surgeons preferred lateral approaches to TLIF and reserved ACR for patients who needed the greatest increase in segmental lordosis. For L4-5, the surgeons' order of preference was LLIF, TLIF, and ALIF, but TLIF failed to demonstrate any significant lordosis restoration. At L5-S1, the surgical team typically preferred an ALIF when segmental lordosis was desired and preferred a TLIF if preoperative segmental lordosis was adequate.

Management of recurrent unilateral lumbar disc herniation in a single level: unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screws fixation with interbody fusion

Background

Lumbar interbody fusion procedure is a recognized surgical technique in management of a variety of lumbar pathologies including recurrent lumbar disc prolapse. Interbody fusion augmented by pedicle screw fixation has been considered to improve fusion rates and clinical outcomes. Interbody fusion is commonly associated with better fusion potentials through applying the bone graft in the load bearing, vascular position of the anterior, and middle spinal columns. However, it still remains unknown whether interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) is superior to that with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF).

Aim of the work

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation associated with interbody fusion for the management of single level unilateral recurrent lumbar disc prolapse as regard the clinical and biomechanical results, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative stay.

Material and methods

This observational prospective comparative study of the two groups who were operated either unilateral (group A /15 patients) or bilateral (group B/15 patients) pedicle screw fixation with interbody fusion was done. Patients were followed up for 1, 6, ad 12 months.

Results

Significant improvement in functional outcome of the two groups was noted compared to preoperatively, except in early postoperative period where the back VAS and ODI in the unilateral group was better than bilateral group. However, on further follow up, no significant difference was noticed. There was no significant difference comparing fusion rate, complication rate, and duration of hospital stay between the two groups at postoperative follow-up. There was significantly less blood loss, and significantly shorter operation time in the unilateral PS fixation group as compared with the bilateral PS fixation group in our study.

Conclusion

Our study suggested that TLIF with unilateral PS fixation was as safe and effective as that with bilateral PS fixation for the management of recurrent single level lumbar disc prolapse; it showed better clinical outcome scores of ODI and back VAS, and a significant reduction of the intraoperative blood loss as well as the operation time, without significant differences considering fusion rate, complication rate, and duration of hospital stay between the two groups at postoperative follow-up. However, BPSF with TLIF likely causes more degeneration at the cranial adjacent segment compared with UPSF techniques. Nevertheless, the long-term follow up is required to demonstrate the impact of these findings.

State of the art advances in minimally invasive surgery for adult spinal deformity

Adult spinal deformity (ASD) can be associated with substantial suffering due to pain and disability. Surgical intervention for achieving neural decompression and restoring physiological spinal alignment has shown to result in significant improvement in pain and disability through patient-reported outcomes. Traditional open approaches involving posterior osteotomy techniques and instrumentation are effective based on clinical outcomes but associated with high complication rates, even in the hands of the most experienced surgeons. Minimally invasive techniques may offer benefit while decreasing associated morbidity. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for ASD has evolved over the past 20 years, driven by improved understanding of open procedures along with novel technique development and technologic advancements. Early efforts were hindered due to suboptimal outcomes resulting from high pseudarthrosis, inadequate correction, and fixation failure rates. To address this, multi-center collaborative groups have been established to study large numbers of ASD patients which have been vital to understanding optimal patient selection and individualized management strategies. Different MIS decision-making algorithms have been described to better define appropriate candidates and interbody selection approaches in ASD. The purpose of this state of the review is to describe the evolution of MIS surgery for adult deformity with emphasis on landmark papers, and to discuss specific MIS technology for ASD, including percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation, hyperlordotic grafts, three-dimensional navigation, and robotics.

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.

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar fusion: A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES

To carry out a systematic review on the basis of overlapping meta-analyses that compare unilateral with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (PSF) in lumbar fusion to identify which study represents the current best evidence, and to provide recommendations of treatment on this topic.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted to identify meta-analyses that compare unilateral with bilateral PSF in lumbar fusion. Only meta-analyses exclusively covering randomized controlled trials were included. Study quality was evaluated using the Oxford Levels of Evidence and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. Then, the Jadad decision algorithm was applied to select the highest-quality study to represent the current best evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies with Level II of evidence fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included. The scores of AMSTAR criteria for them varied from 5 to 9 (mean 7.78). The current best evidence detected no significant differences between unilateral and bilateral PSF for short-segment lumbar fusion in the functional scores, length of hospital stay, fusion rate, and complication rate. However, unilateral PSF involved a remarkable decrease in operative time and blood loss but increase of cage migration when compared with bilateral PSF.

CONCLUSIONS

According to this systematic review, unilateral PSF is an effective method of fixation for short-segment lumbar fusion, has the advantages of reduced operative time and blood loss over bilateral PSF, but increases the risk of cage migration.

Unilateral Versus Bilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical and radiologic outcomes of unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) and bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixations after single-level oblique lateral interbody fusion procedures.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 74 patients receiving single-level oblique lateral interbody fusion at L3-4 or L4-5 (June 2014 to June 2017). These patients were divided into BPS (n = 36) and UPS (n = 38) groups. Perioperative outcomes included operative time, blood loss, medical expenses, and complication rates. Radiologic outcomes included fusion rates and cage subsidence rates. Clinical outcomes included disability measured by the Oswestry Disability Index and pain measured by the visual analog scale.

RESULTS

The operative time was significantly shorter in the UPS group (76.2 ± 4.4 minutes) compared with the BPS group (127.0 ± 5.6 minutes, P < 0.001). There was a significant between-group difference in medical expenses ($11,044.8 ± $470.7 in UPS group vs. $15,018.4 ± $547.1 in BPS, P < 0.001). Blood loss and hospital stay did not differ between groups. Oswestry Disability Index and visual analog scale scores significantly decreased in both groups at different time points postoperatively compared with preoperatively. The UPS group had lower Oswestry Disability Index and visual analog scale scores than the BPS group at 7 days postoperatively, but no between-group difference was found after 1-month follow-up. Fusion rate was 86.8% in UPS group and 91.7% in BPS group (P > 0.05). Cage subsidence rates did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Oblique lateral interbody fusion with UPS fixation is an effective and reliable option for single-level lumbar diseases. Compared with BPS fixation, it resulted in less blood loss, required less operative time, and had comparable effects on radiologic and clinical outcomes.

An evaluation of biomaterials and osteobiologics for arthrodesis achievement in spine surgery

An increasing variety of orthobiologic materials, including autologous and allogeneic bone graft, bone marrow aspirate, demineralized bone matrix, ceramics, and growth factors are available to the spine surgeon. Although autologous bone graft remains the gold standard material, concerns for failure in achieving fusion have prompted evaluation of current and new biologic materials. As such, this review attempts to summarize the available biologic materials with their pertinent characteristics, advantages, disadvantages, and primary uses.

Orthobiologics in minimally invasive lumbar fusion

Minimally invasive (MI) spine surgery continues to gain popularity with patients and surgeons for its potential to decrease operative time and avoid complications commonly associated with open surgery. In the face of a changing surgical landscape, selecting the appropriate implant material to be used in MI lumbar fusion procedures will remain critically important. Various orthobiologic materials are available for use, including autologous and allogeneic bone graft, bone marrow aspirate (BMA), demineralized bone matrix (DBM), ceramics, and growth factors. The purpose of this review is to summarize the use and efficacy of currently available products, as well as highlight the development of novel therapeutic options.

Restoration of lumbar lordosis after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a well-accepted surgical technique for the treatment of degenerative spinal conditions and spinal deformity. The TLIF procedure can be performed open or using minimally invasive techniques. While several studies have found that minimally invasive TLIF (MI-TLIF) has advantages over open TLIF procedures with less blood loss, postoperative pain and hospital length of stay, opponents of the minimally invasive technique cite the lack of restoration of lumbar lordosis as a major drawback. With the increasing awareness of restoring sagittal alignment parameters in degenerative and deformity procedures, surgeons should understand the capabilities of different procedures to achieve surgical goals. To our knowledge, few studies have specifically studied the radiographic restoration of lumbar lordosis after MI-TLIF procedures. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature describing the sagittal lumbar radiographic parameter changes after MI-TLIF.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, systematic review was performed. With the assistance of a medical librarian, a highly-sensitive search strategy formulated on 1/19/2018 utilized the following search terms: "minimally invasive procedures," "transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion," "lumbar interbody fusion," "diagnostic imaging," "radiographs," "radiography," "x-rays," "lordosis," "lumbar vertebrae," "treatment," "outcome," and "lumbosacral" using Boolean operators 'AND' and 'OR'. Three databases were searched (PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library). An online system (www.covidence.org) was used to standardize article review. All studies were independently analyzed by two investigators and discrepancies mitigated by a third reviewer. Study selection for each cycle was Yes/No/Maybe. Cycles were: (1) (Title/Abstract); (2) (Full Text); (3) (Extraction). Inclusion criteria were: (1) All study designs, (2) MI-TLIF procedures, (3) Reporting total lumbar lordosis (LL) and/or segmental lordosis (SL) pre- and postoperatively. Exclusion criteria were: (1) non MI-TLIF procedures (ALIF, XLIF, LLIF, conventional TLIF, OLIF), (2) No reported LL or SL.

RESULTS

The search yielded 4,036 results with 836 duplicates leaving 3,200 studies for review. Cycle 1 eliminated 3,153 studies as irrelevant, thus, 47 were eligible for full-text review. Cycle 2 excluded 31 studies for No English full text (9), Oral/Poster (8), Wrong intervention/outcome (10), Duplicate listing (2), Full text not available (1), Literature review (1) resulting in 16 included studies. Study designs were: Randomized-controlled trial (3), Case series (6) and Retrospective (7). Mean # of subjects were 32.0 (range 8-95). Weighted-mean LL was 39.6°±9.2 (range 28-57) and postoperative LL was 45.0°±7.4 (range 36-67) with a LL post-pre difference of 5.2°±5.9 (range -7 to 15). Weighted-mean preoperative SL was 12.7°±4.3 (range 5-21) and postoperative SL was 15.0°±4.5 (range 5-22) with a SL post-pre difference of 2.1°±1.7 (range 0-8).

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature on MI-TLIF and restoration of LL/SL is limited to 16 published studies, 44% of which are retrospective. The published evidence supporting LL and SL restoration with MI-TLIF is sparse with variable results. This systematic review demonstrates the need for future high-level studies to fully elucidate the capabilities of MI-TLIF procedures for restoring lumbar and segmental lordosis.

Is unilateral pedicle screw fixation superior than bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis

Background

To investigate whether unilateral pedicle screw fixation is superior than bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases.

Methods

Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to August 2018 were searched. All the high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective clinical controlled studies comparing the unilateral pedicle screw fixation and bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases were enrolled in this study. Fusion rate was the main outcome. Stata 12.0 was used for the meta-analysis.

Results

Twelve RCTs including 808 patients (unilateral pedicle screw fixation = 393, bilateral pedicle screw fixation = 415) were included in our meta-analysis. There was a significant difference between unilateral pedicle screw fixation and bilateral pedicle screw fixation in terms of the fusion rate (risk ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95%CI [0.92, 1.00], P = 0.073), visual analog scale (VAS) at final follow-up, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association scores (JOA), short-form health survey (SF-36), and length of hospital stay. Compared with bilateral pedicle screw fixation, unilateral pedicle screw fixation was associated with a reduction of the total blood loss and operation time (P < 0.05). Unilateral pedicle screw fixation was associated with an increase of the cage migration than bilateral pedicle screw fixation (17.1% vs 7.1%, RR = 2.40, 95% CI = 1.17 to 4.93; P = 0.017).

Conclusions

Unilateral pedicle screw fixation and bilateral pedicle screw fixation has similar fusion rate when treating for lumbar degenerative diseases. Our meta-analysis suggested that compared with bilateral pedicle screw fixation, unilateral pedicle screw fixation significantly reduced total blood loss and operation time for lumbar degenerative diseases. The use of unilateral pedicle screw for lumbar degenerative diseases increases the cage migration.

Do we need a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage to increase the stability of functional spinal unit when comparing unilateral and bilateral fixation?

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was an alternative to posterior lumbar interbody fusion for decompression surgeries. This study investigates the biomechanical responses of the unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixations with/without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cages under axial compression, flexion, and torsional loads. Ovine vertebrae were used in this study. Cadavers, randomly divided into five, were intact control group, bilateral pedicle screw fixation group, bilateral pedicle screw fixation group with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage, unilateral pedicle screw fixation group, and unilateral pedicle screw fixation group with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage. Axial compression, flexion, and torsion tests were performed on specimens. All study groups provided higher stiffness and yield load values than control group under axial compression. Addition of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage to bilateral fixation increased the stiffness under axial compression. Moreover, additional use of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in unilateral fixation increased the yield load values under axial compression. Control group was the stiffest in flexion test. Placing a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage to both unilateral and bilateral fixations did not significantly change the stiffness values. Additional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage increased the yield moment of the bilateral fixation. In torsion test, control group had the highest stiffness and yield torque. The facet joints are the most important parts of the vertebrae on the stability. When comparing the bilateral and unilateral fixations with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion addition, the more facet preserving approach has significantly higher stability under axial compression, flexion, and torsion. Unilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage can be said biomechanically stable and advantageous fixation system because of the advantage on the less facet and soft tissue resection compared to bilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-analysis of the Fusion Rates. What is the Optimal Graft Material?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is an increasingly popular procedure with several potential advantages over traditional open TLIF.

OBJECTIVE

The current study aimed to compare fusion rates of different graft materials used in MIS-TLIF, via meta-analysis of the published literature.

METHODS

A Medline search was performed and a database was created including patient's type of graft, clinical outcome, fusion rate, fusion assessment modality, and duration of follow-up. Meta-analysis of the fusion rate was performed using StatsDirect software (StatsDirect Ltd, Cheshire, United Kingdom).

RESULTS

A total of 1533 patients from 40 series were included. Fusion rates were high, ranging from 91.8% to 99%. The imaging modalities used to assess fusion were computed tomography scans (30%) and X-rays (70%). Comparison of all recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP) series with all non-rhBMP series showed fusion rates of 96.6% and 92.5%, respectively. The lowest fusion rate was seen with isolated use of autologous local bone (91.8%). The highest fusion rate was observed with combination of autologous local bone with bone extender and rhBMP (99.1%). The highest fusion rate without the use of BMP was seen with autologous local bone + bone extender (93.1%). The reported complication rate ranged from 0% to 35.71%. Clinical improvement was observed in all studies.

CONCLUSION

Fusion rates are generally high with MIS-TLIF regardless of the graft material used. Given the potential complications of iliac bone harvesting and rhBMP, use of other bone graft options for MIS-TLIF is reasonable. The highest fusion rate without the use of rhBMP was seen with autologous local bone plus bone extender (93.1%).

Spinal Biologics in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Surgery

As the use of minimally invasive spine (MIS) fusion approaches continues to grow, increased scrutiny is being placed on its outcomes and efficacies against traditional open fusion surgeries. While there are many factors that contribute to the success of achieving spinal arthrodesis, selecting the optimal fusion biologic remains a top priority. With an ever-expanding market of bone graft substitutes, it is important to evaluate each of their use as it pertains to MIS techniques. This review will summarize the important characteristics and properties of various spinal biologics used in minimally invasive lumbar surgeries and compare their fusion rates via a systematic review of published literature.

Radiographic and Clinical Outcome of Silicate-substituted Calcium Phosphate (Si-CaP) Ceramic Bone Graft in Spinal Fusion Procedures

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the radiographic and clinical outcome of silicate-substituted calcium phosphate (Si-CaP), utilized as a graft substance in spinal fusion procedures.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Specific properties of Si-CaP provide the graft with negative surface charge that can result in a positive effect on the osteoblast activity and neovascularization of the bone.

METHODS

This study included those patients who underwent spinal fusion procedures between 2007 and 2011 in which Si-CaP was used as the only bone graft substance. Fusion was evaluated on follow-up CT scans. Clinical outcome was assessed using Oswestry Disability Index, Neck Disability Index, and the visual analogue scale (VAS) for back, leg, neck, and arm pain.

RESULTS

A total of 234 patients (516 spinal fusion levels) were studied. Surgical procedures consisted of 57 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 49 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, 44 extreme lateral interbody fusion, 30 posterior cervical fusions, 19 thoracic fusion surgeries, 17 axial lumbar interbody fusions, 16 combined anterior and posterior cervical fusions, and 2 anterior lumbar interbody fusion. At a mean radiographic follow-up of 14.2±4.3 months, fusion was found to be present in 82.9% of patients and 86.8% of levels. The highest fusion rate was observed in the cervical region. At the latest clinical follow-up of 21.7±14.2 months, all clinical outcome parameters showed significant improvement. The Oswestry Disability Index improved from 45.6 to 13.3 points, Neck Disability Index from 40.6 to 29.3, VAS back from 6.1 to 3.5, VAS leg from 5.6 to 2.4, VAS neck from 4.7 to 2.7, and VAS arm from 4.1 to 1.7. Of 7 cases with secondary surgical procedure at the index level, the indication for surgery was nonunion in 3 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Si-CaP is an effective bone graft substitute. At the latest follow-up, favorable radiographic and clinical outcome was observed in the majority of patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level-III.

Unilateral Versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Monocentric Study of 215 Patients With a Minimum of 4-Year Follow-up

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective clinical study.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to retrospectively compare the mid-term to long-term outcomes between unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) and bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) augmented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in lumbar degenerative diseases.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Recently, UPS fixation has been applied in TLIF, for its satisfactory clinical outcome, less implants and less invasiveness. However, only short-term outcome has been reported, the mid-term to long-term outcome has not been well characterized.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From June 2007 to February 2011, 215 of 348 consecutive patients suffering from lumbar degenerative diseases were operated in our hospital and accomplished a minimum of 4-year follow-up. These patients were divided into 2 groups according to the operative techniques: UPS group (n=109), and bilateral pedicle screw group (n=106). Operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, hospital bill, fusion status, and complications were recorded and analyzed statistically. Visual analog scale, Oswestry disability index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores were used to assess the preoperative and postoperative pain and functional outcome.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up duration was 52.2 months. A significant decrease occurred in operative time, blood loss, and hospital bill in unilateral group, compared with bilateral group (P<0.05). The average postoperative visual analog scale, Oswestry disability index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores improved significantly in each group than the preoperative counterparts (P<0.05); however, there were no significant difference between groups at any follow-up time point (P>0.05). No statistically difference was detected regarding fusion rate and complication rate between the 2 groups (P>0.05), except the cage migration rate (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

UPS fixation could achieve satisfactory clinical outcome similar to bilateral fixation in TLIF at a mid-term to long-term follow-up. To avoid cage migration, bullet-shaped cages should not be used in the unilateral group.

Effectiveness and safety of unilateral pedicle screw fixation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of unilateral pedicle screw fixation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by comparing with bilateral pedicle screw fixation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial database were used to search and identify clinical prospective trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of unilateral fixation as compared with bilateral fixation in TLIF surgery. The methodological qualities of studies were assessed using the PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) score and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Fourteen prospective studies comprising 954 participants were analyzed. Data synthesis show lower fusion rate (P = 0.03) and more cage migration (P = 0.04) in unilateral group compared to bilateral group. There was no significant difference in visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) physical component score (PCS), and length of hospital stay between unilateral and bilateral groups. The unilateral group had shorter operative time (P < 0.00001) and less blood loss (P = 0.0007).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis, the unilateral fixation in TLIF may achieve a similar clinical outcome and reduce blood loss and operative time when compared with that in bilateral fixation. However, the unilateral fixation may produce lower fusion rate and more cage migration than bilateral fixation in TLIF.

Surgical options for lumbar spinal stenosis

BACKGROUND

Hospital charges for lumbar spinal stenosis have increased significantly worldwide in recent times, with great variation in the costs and rates of different surgical procedures. There have also been significant increases in the rate of complex fusion and the use of spinal spacer implants compared to that of traditional decompression surgery, even though the former is known to incur costs up to three times higher. Moreover, the superiority of these new surgical procedures over traditional decompression surgery is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of surgery in the management of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and the comparative effectiveness between commonly performed surgical techniques to treat this condition on patient-related outcomes. We also aimed to investigate the safety of these surgical interventions by including perioperative surgical data and reoperation rates.

SEARCH METHODS

Review authors performed electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS and three trials registries from their inception to 16 June 2016. Authors also conducted citation tracking on the reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review included only randomised controlled trials that investigated the efficacy and safety of surgery compared with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery, or with another surgical technique in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed the studies for inclusion and performed the 'Risk of bias' assessment, using the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group criteria. Reviewers also extracted demographics, surgery details, and types of outcomes to describe the characteristics of included studies. Primary outcomes were pain intensity, physical function or disability status, quality of life, and recovery. The secondary outcomes included measurements related to surgery, such as perioperative blood loss, operation time, length of hospital stay, reoperation rates, and costs. We grouped trials according to the types of surgical interventions being compared and categorised follow-up times as short-term when less than 12 months and long-term when 12 months or more. Pain and disability scores were converted to a common 0 to 100 scale. We calculated mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risks for dichotomous outcomes. We pooled data using the random-effects model in Review Manager 5.3, and used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 24 randomised controlled trials (reported in 39 published research articles or abstracts) in this review. The trials included 2352 participants with lumbar spinal stenosis with symptoms of neurogenic claudication. None of the included trials compared surgery with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery. Therefore, all included studies compared two or more surgical techniques. We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias for the blinding of care provider domain, and most of the trials failed to adequately conceal the randomisation process, blind the participants or use intention-to-treat analysis. Five trials compared the effects of fusion in addition to decompression surgery. Our results showed no significant differences in pain relief at long-term (mean difference (MD) -0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.32 to 6.74). Similarly, we found no between-group differences in disability reduction in the long-term (MD 3.26, 95% CI -6.12 to 12.63). Participants who received decompression alone had significantly less perioperative blood loss (MD -0.52 L, 95% CI -0.70 L to -0.34 L) and required shorter operations (MD -107.94 minutes, 95% CI -161.65 minutes to -54.23 minutes) compared with those treated with decompression plus fusion, though we found no difference in the number of reoperations (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.92). Another three trials investigated the effects of interspinous process spacer devices compared with conventional bony decompression. These spacer devices resulted in similar reductions in pain (MD -0.55, 95% CI -8.08 to 6.99) and disability (MD 1.25, 95% CI -4.48 to 6.98). The spacer devices required longer operation time (MD 39.11 minutes, 95% CI 19.43 minutes to 58.78 minutes) and were associated with higher risk of reoperation (RR 3.95, 95% CI 2.12 to 7.37), but we found no difference in perioperative blood loss (MD 144.00 mL, 95% CI -209.74 mL to 497.74 mL). Two trials compared interspinous spacer devices with decompression plus fusion. Although we found no difference in pain relief (MD 5.35, 95% CI -1.18 to 11.88), the spacer devices revealed a small but significant effect in disability reduction (MD 5.72, 95% CI 1.28 to 10.15). They were also superior to decompression plus fusion in terms of operation time (MD 78.91 minutes, 95% CI 30.16 minutes to 127.65 minutes) and perioperative blood loss (MD 238.90 mL, 95% CI 182.66 mL to 295.14 mL), however, there was no difference in rate of reoperation (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.51). Overall there were no differences for the primary or secondary outcomes when different types of surgical decompression techniques were compared among each other. The quality of evidence varied from 'very low quality' to 'high quality'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of this Cochrane review show a paucity of evidence on the efficacy of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, as to date no trials have compared surgery with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery. Placebo-controlled trials in surgery are feasible and needed in the field of lumbar spinal stenosis. Our results demonstrate that at present, decompression plus fusion and interspinous process spacers have not been shown to be superior to conventional decompression alone. More methodologically rigorous studies are needed in this field to confirm our results.

Minimally Invasive Unilateral vs. Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation and Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Treatment of Multi-Segment Lumbar Degenerative Disorders

Background

The choice for instrumentation with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in treatment of degenerative lumbar disorders (DLD) remains controversial. The goal of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes in consecutive patients with multi-segment DLD treated with unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) vs. bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) instrumented TLIF.

Material/Methods

Eighty-four consecutive patients who had multi-level MIS-TLIF were retrospectively reviewed. All data were collected to compare the clinical outcomes between the 2 groups.

Results

Both groups showed similar clinical function scores in VAS and ODI. The two groups differed significantly in operative time (P<0.001), blood loss (P<0.001), and fusion rate (P=0.043), respectively.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated similar clinical outcomes between UPS fixation and BPS procedure after MIS-TLIF for multi-level DLD. Moreover, UPS technique was superior in operative time and blood loss, but represented lower fusion rate than the BPS construct did.

Biomechanical comparison of unilateral semi-rigid and dynamic stabilization on ovine vertebrae

Using the unilateral pedicle screw fixation was thought to decrease the stiffness of the fixed segments. Various prospective, randomized studies were performed to determine whether unilateral pedicle screw fixation provides the necessities of bilateral fixation in one- or two-segment lumbar spinal fusion. In this study, four different unilateral pedicle screw fixation systems were evaluated to determine which one best approximated an intact spine with respect to biomechanics and kinematics. The four groups included an intact group, a unilateral facetectomy group with no fixation, a unilateral semi-rigid pedicle screw fixation group with a poly-ether-ether-ketone rod, and a unilateral dynamic pedicle screw fixation group. The bone mineral densities of all specimens were measured and specimens were matched with groups randomly. Flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation tests were performed to compare the groups. For the flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation tests, the best biomechanical outcomes were in the control group. The unilateral facetectomy group had the poorest performance and was not stable enough, compared with the control group. The dynamic and semi-rigid groups showed performance closer to that of the control group. The biomechanical responses of these two groups were also in good agreement, showing no significant statistical differences. Based on these test results, it is concluded that the unilateral dynamic and semi-rigid pedicle screw fixations can be used to provide stability to the vertebrae.

Comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion performed with unilateral pedicle screw fixation or unilateral pedicle screw-contralateral percutaneous transfacet screw fixation

PURPOSE

To determine whether unilateral pedicle screw fixation is comparable with unilateral pedicle screw and contralateral percutaneous transfacet screw fixation in single-level lumbar spinal fusion.

METHODS

Fifty-eight patients were divided into either unilateral (n = 32) or unilateral pedicle screw and contralateral percutaneous transfacet screw fixation (n = 26) instrumentation groups. The operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, clinical outcomes, total lumbar scoliotic changes, and fusion and complication rates were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in blood loss, length of hospital stay, clinical results, total lumbar scoliotic changes, and fusion and complication rates. There were significant differences in duration of operating time between 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Unilateral pedicle screw fixation may be as effective as unilateral PS with contralateral percutaneous transfacet screw fixation for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disorders.

Outcomes after minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral laminotomies

Background

The unilateral approach for bilateral decompression was developed as an alternative to laminectomy. Unilateral laminotomy has been rated technically considerably more demanding and associated with more perioperative complications than bilateral laminotomy. Several studies have indicated that bilateral laminotomy are associated with a substantial benefit in most outcome parameters and thus constituted a promising treatment alternative. However, no complete kinematic data and relative biomechanical analysis for evaluating spinal instability treated with unilateral and bilateral laminotomy are available. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the stability of various decompression methods.

Methods

Ten porcine lumbar spines were biomechanically evaluated regarding their strain and range of motion, and the results were compared following unilateral or bilateral laminotomies and laminectomy. The experimental protocol included flexion and extension in the following procedures: intact, unilateral or bilateral laminotomies (L2–L5), and full laminectomy (L2–L5). The spinal segment kinematics was captured using a motion tracking system, and the strain was measured using a strain gauge.

Results

No significant differences were observed during flexion and extension between the unilateral and bilateral laminotomies, whereas laminectomy yielded statistically significant findings. Regarding strain, significant differences were observed between the laminectomy and other groups. These results suggest that laminotomy entails higher spinal stability than laminectomy, with no significant differences between bilateral and unilateral laminotomies.

Conclusions

The laminectomy group exhibited more instability, including the index of the range of motion and strain. However, bilateral laminotomy seems to have led to stability similar to that of unilateral laminotomy according to our short-term follow-up. In addition, performing bilateral laminotomies is easier for surgeons than adopting a unilateral approach for bilateral decompression. The results provide recommendations for surgeons regarding final decision making. Future studies conducting long-term evaluation are required.

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in short-segment lumbar spinal fusion: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

We performed this meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral with bilateral fixation in short-segment lumbar spinal fusion.

METHODS

Predefined terms were used to search electronic databases to identify relevant research. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English and Chinese during 1990-2015 investigating efficacy and safety of unilateral and bilateral fixation in short-segment lumbar spinal fusion were included. Data of fusion rate, complications, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), estimated blood loss (EBL) and length of hospital stay were extracted and analysed. Two reviewers independently searched information sources, selected eligible research, analysed data and evaluated risk of bias.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs comprising 756 participants were analysed. There was no significant difference in fusion rate, device-related complication, ODI, VAS and length of hospital stay between bilateral and unilateral groups. The unilateral group had the obvious advantage of reduced blood loss [mean difference (MD) -143.57, 95 % confidence interval (Cl) -206.61 to -80.54, P < 0.0001) and operation time (MD -52.72, 95 % Cl -73.58 to -31.87, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Unilateral pedicle screw fixation is equally as effective as bilateral pedicle screw fixation in short-segment lumbar spinal fusion and may reduce operation time and blood loss.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in two-level degenerative lumbar diseases

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented in two-level degenerative lumbar diseases after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of 74 patients, who underwent unilateral or bilateral instrumented in two-level MITLIF for degenerative lumbar diseases from May 2010 to June 2012. There were 35 patients in group A undergoing unilateral pedicle screw fixation and 39 patients in group B undergoing bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Demographic data and clinical characteristics were compared between the two groups before surgery. Perioperative data, clinical and radiological outcomes of the two groups were also compared.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 32.1 ± 7.5 months for group A and 31.7 ± 8.0 months for group B (p > 0.05). Group A required a significantly shorter operating time, lower implant costs and less intraoperative blood loss and X-ray exposure time than group B (p < 0.01). However, no statistical differences were identified in the amount of transfusion and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups (p > 0.05). Clinical outcomes assessed by visual analog scores for back and leg pain (VAS-BP and VAS-LP, respectively) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improved significantly in both groups after surgery, and no significant differences existed between the two groups at each postoperative follow-up (p > 0.05). There were significant differences within groups for Cobb angles of the whole lumbar [Cobb (a)] and the whole lumbar lordosis at each time point before and after surgery (p < 0.05). No significant differences existed between groups in relation to Cobb (a), Cobb angle of the fused segments, lumbar lordosis and the segmental lordosis at any time point before and after surgery (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in fusion rate and total complication rate between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Unilateral instrumentation after two-level MITLIF provided similar clinical and radiological outcomes to bilateral fixation in two-level degenerative lumbar diseases. Compared with bilateral fixation, unilateral fixation shortens operation time, reduces intra-operative blood loss and X-ray exposure time, and saves medical expenses with similar postoperative hospital stay and complication rate.

Novel pedicle screw and plate system provides superior stability in unilateral fixation for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an in vitro biomechanical study

Purpose

This study aims to compare the biomechanical properties of the novel pedicle screw and plate system with the traditional rod system in asymmetrical posterior stabilization for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). We compared the immediate stabilizing effects of fusion segment and the strain distribution on the vertebral body.

Methods

Seven fresh calf lumbar spines (L3-L6) were tested. Flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were induced by pure moments of ± 5.0 Nm and the range of motion (ROM) was recorded. Strain gauges were instrumented at L4 and L5 vertebral body to record the strain distribution under flexion and lateral bending (LB). After intact kinematic analysis, a right sided TLIF was performed at L4-L5. Then each specimen was tested for the following constructs: unilateral pedicle screw and rod (UR); unilateral pedicle screw and plate (UP); UR and transfacet pedicle screw (TFS); UP and TFS; UP and UR.

Results

All instrumented constructs significantly reduced ROM in all motion compared with the intact specimen, except the UR construct in axial rotation. Unilateral fixation (UR or UP) reduced ROM less compared with the bilateral fixation (UP/UR+TFS, UP+UR). The plate system resulted in more reduction in ROM compared with the rod system, especially in axial rotation. UP construct provided more stability in axial rotation compared with UR construct. The strain distribution on the left and right side of L4 vertebral body was significantly different from UR and UR+TFS construct under flexion motion. The strain distribution on L4 vertebral body was significantly influenced by different fixation constructs.

Conclusions

The novel plate could provide sufficient segmental stability in axial rotation. The UR construct exhibits weak stability and asymmetrical strain distribution in fusion segment, while the UP construct is a good alternative choice for unilateral posterior fixation of MI-TLIF.

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF): a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

A few studies focused on unilateral or bilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) to treat lumbar degenerative diseases have been published. There is still debate over whether one method is superior to another. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) was performed to compare the efficacy of the two methods.

Methods

We searched the established electronic literature databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for RCTs comparing the unilateral with bilateral pedicle screw fixation of MIS-TLIF. Pooled mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) and with 95% CIs were calculated for the outcomes.

Results

Three RCTs were identified and analyzed. The results showed that there is no significant difference between the two methods in terms of postoperative VAS-BP score (WMD = -0.09; 95% CI: -0.69 to 0.51; P =0.78), ODI (WMD, -0.09; 95% CI -5.85 to 5.67; P =0.98), fusion rate (OR = 2.99; 95% CI 0.55 to 16.38; P = 0.21) or complication rate (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 0.49 to 5.37; P =0.43). Unilateral pedicle screw fixation was associated with less blood loss (WMD = -87.83; 95% CI: -160.70 to -14.96; P =0.02).

Conclusions

The existing evidence indicate that no superiority exists between the two fixation methods of MIS-TLIF in terms of functional outcome, fusion rate and complication rate, in spite of that unilateral pedicle screw fixation can achieve less blood loss than bilateral fixation.

A meta-analysis of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Bilateral pedicle screw fixation (PS) after lumbar interbody fusion is a widely accepted method of managing various spinal diseases. Recently, unilateral PS fixation has been reported as effective as bilateral PS fixation. This meta-analysis aimed to comparatively assess the efficacy and safety of unilateral PS fixation and bilateral PS fixation in the minimally invasive (MIS) lumbar interbody fusion for one-level degenerative lumbar spine disease.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, and Cochrane Library were searched through March 30, 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on unilateral versus bilateral PS fixation in MIS lumbar interbody fusion that met the inclusion criteria and the methodological quality standard were retrieved and reviewed. Data on participant characteristics, interventions, follow-up period, and outcomes were extracted from the included studies and analyzed by Review Manager 5.2.

RESULTS

Six studies (5 RCTs and 1 CCT) involving 298 patients were selected. There were no significant differences between unilateral and bilateral PS fixation procedures in fusion rate, complications, visual analogue score (VAS) for leg pain, VAS for back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI). Both fixation procedures had similar length of hospital stay (MD = 0.38, 95% CI = -0.83 to 1.58; P = 0.54). In contrast, bilateral PS fixation was associated with significantly more intra-operative blood loss (P = 0.002) and significantly longer operation time (P = 0.02) as compared with unilateral PS fixation.

CONCLUSIONS

Unilateral PS fixation appears as effective and safe as bilateral PS fixation in MIS lumbar interbody fusion but requires less operative time and causes less blood loss, thus offering a simple alternative approach for one-level lumbar degenerative disease.

The technological development of minimally invasive spine surgery

Minimally invasive spine surgery has its roots in the mid-twentieth century with a few surgeons and a few techniques, but it has now developed into a large field of progressive spinal surgery. A wide range of techniques are now called "minimally invasive," and case reports are submitted constantly with new "minimally invasive" approaches to spinal pathology. As minimally invasive spine surgery has become more mainstream over the past ten years, in this paper we discuss its history and development.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Background

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become one of the most widely used procedures for lumbar spinal disorders. However, it is still unclear whether TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation is as effective as that with bilateral PS fixation. We performed a meta-analysis of the literatures and aimed to gain a better understanding of whether TLIF with unilateral PS fixation was safe and effective for lumbar diseases.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We systematically searched Ovid, Springer, and Medline databases for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral PS fixation in TLIF. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We generated pooled risk ratios or weighted mean differences across studies. According to our predefined inclusion criteria, seven RCTs with a total of 441 patients were included in this study. Baseline characteristics were similar between the unilateral and bilateral groups. Our meta-analysis showed that no significant difference was detected between the two groups in terms of postoperative clinical function, fusion status, reoperation rate, complication rate, and hospital stay (p>0.05). Pooled estimates revealed that the unilateral group was associated with significantly reduced implant cost, operative time and blood loss (p<0.05).

Conclusions/Significances

Our meta-analysis suggested TLIF with unilateral PS fixation was as safe and effective as that with bilateral PS fixation for lumbar diseases in selected patients. Despite these findings, our meta-analysis was based on studies with small sample size and different study characteristics that might lead to the inconsistent results such as various functional outcomes among the included studies. Therefore, high-quality randomized controlled trials with larger sample size are also needed to further clarify these issues and to provide the long-term outcomes.