Comparison of lumbar interbody fusion performed with unilateral or bilateral pedicle screw

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.

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.

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 pedicle screw fixation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Both unilateral pedicle screw fixation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and bilateral pedicle screw fixation with PLIF are used to treat lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). However, which one is a better treatment for LDD remains considerable controversy. Therefore, the focus of this meta-analysis was to assess the merits and shortcomings of efficacy of these 2 surgical procedures for LDD.

METHODS

An extensive search of literature was performed in Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, CNKI, and WANFANG databases on unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with PLIF fusion for LDD, from January 2007 to January 2017 and language was restricted to Chinese or English. The following variables were extracted: blood loss, operation time, length of hospital stay, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, fusion rate, total complications, infection, dural injury, and nerve injury. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3 and STATA 12.0.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies containing 844 patients were included in our study. The results showed that unilateral is better than bilateral pedicle screw fixation with PLIF in blood loss (P < .00001), operation time (P < .00001), the length of hospital stay (P = .003), and the final follow-up ODI scores (P = .04). However, there are no significant differences in JOA, VAS, and preoperative ODI scores. There are also no significant differences in fusion rate and complications (all P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Based on our meta-analysis, our results suggest that both unilateral pedicle screw fixation with PLIF and bilateral pedicle screw fixation with PLIF for LDD have effective results in clinical outcomes. Both 2 methods may result in clinical improvement and similar outcomes of fusion rate and complications; However, compared with bilateral fixation, unilateral fixation produces more satisfactory efficacy in the blood loss and the operation time.

Comparison of intraoperative O-arm- and conventional fluoroscopy (C-arm)-assisted insertion of pedicle screws in the treatment of fracture of thoracic vertebrae

Purpose:

To introduce the intraoperative O-arm-assisted pedicle screw insertion without any navigation system in the treatment of thoracic vertebrae fracture and compare it to conventional fluoroscopy (C-arm)-assisted pedicle screw insertion technique.

Methods:

About 156 pedicle screws were inserted in 23 patients (C-arm group), and 208 pedicle screws were inserted in 30 patients (O-arm group). The postoperative computed tomography images were analyzed for pedicle violation based on Gertzbein classification. The total surgery time, the average time required for inserting a screw, the mean action times of adjusting guide probe and pedicle screw, and the hospitalization time were compared in both groups, respectively. The American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) was used for evaluating the health outcomes pre- and postoperatively.

Results:

There are the higher accuracy rate of satisfactory pedicle screw placement (grades 0 and 1) and the less incidence of medial perforation in the O-arm group compared to the C-arm group ( p < 0.05). The average time required for inserting a screw, the action times of adjusting the guide probe and pedicle screw, and the hospitalization time in the O-arm group are less than the respective ones in the C-arm group ( p < 0.05). There was no significant difference for the total surgery time between both groups. No further damage of the nerve function postoperatively is found according to the ASIA grade.

Conclusion:

The O-arm-assisted pedicle screw insertion without navigation we described provides higher accuracy of pedicle screw placement and better clinical efficacy compared to conventional fluoroscopy (C-arm) technique.

Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation with Bone Graft vs. Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation with Bone Graft or Cage: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to explore the clinical efficacy of unilateral pedicle screw fixation with bone graft (UPSFB) in treating single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD), as compared to bilateral pedicle screw fixation with bone graft (BPSFB) or with cage (BPSFC).

MATERIAL/METHODS

Medical records were retrospectively collected between 01/2010 and 02/2015 in Longyao County Hospital. According to surgical methods used, all patients were divided into 3 groups: UPSFB group, BPSFB group, and BPSFC group. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by blood loss, blood transfusion, duration of operation, hospital stay, postoperative complications, interbody fusion rate, reoperation rate, medical expenses, patient satisfaction survey, and JOA score.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients were included and underwent 2.5-year follow-up, with 7 patients lost to regular follow-up. As compared to the BPSFB group and BPSFC group, the UPSFB group had less blood loss and less blood transfusion, as well as shorter hospital stay (p<0.05). Medical expenses were far lower in the UPSFB group (p<0.001). There were no significant differences among the 3 groups in postoperative complications, interbody fusion rate, reoperation rate, JOA score, and patient satisfaction (all p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

As compared to BPSFB and BPSFC, UPSFB has the same reliability and effectiveness in treating single-segment LDD with unilateral radicular symptoms in a single lower extremity, with the additional advantage being less expensive.

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.

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials

Background

The common and effective treatment for degenerative lumbar diseases is lumbar spinal fusion. Controversy still exists on the choice for instrumentation with spinal fusion procedures. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis exclusively of RCTs to compare the clinical outcomes of patients receiving bilateral versus unilateral pedicle screw fixation (PSF).

Material/Methods

After systematic review of published and unpublished literature, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the 2 treatment strategies. The methodological quality of the literature was assessed using the PEDro critical appraisal tool.

Results

Data synthesis showed less blood loss (P<0.001) and shorter operative time (P<0.001) in patients receiving unilateral PSF compared to bilateral PSF. However, there was no significant difference in fusion rates and functional outcomes between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

The meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in fusion rates and functional outcomes between the 2 treatment procedures, but unilateral PS fixation reduced blood loss and operative time.

Short-term effect of unilateral pedicle screw fixed intervertebral fusion in treatment of degenerative disc disease via MAST QUADRANT minimally invasive system

To assess the short-term outcome of unilateral pedicle screw fixed intervertebral fusion surgery for degenerative disc disease via MAST QUADRANT minimally invasive system. Thirty patients with degenerative lumbar disease from September 2009 to September 2011 were enrolled and divided into two groups: (1) unilateral pedicle screw fixed intervertebral fusion via MAST QUADRANT system; and (2) conventional bilateral pedicle fixed intervertebral fusion via open surgery. The perioperative parameters (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of stay) and the follow-up clinical curative effect parameters (VAS and ODI) were compared between two groups. All patients successfully completed surgery and were followed up for more than 1 year. The perioperative parameters of MAST QUADRANT system group were significantly better than the control group (P < 0.05). And the clinical curative effects were similar to conventional surgery (P > 0.05). Unilateral pedicle screw fixed intervertebral fusion via MAST QUADRANT system is a less invasive and safer surgical techniques. It offers a quick recovery and effective surgical option in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

Bilateral decompression using a unilateral pedicle construct for lumbar stenosis

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness of bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach using unilateral pedicle screw fixation for two-level lumbar stenosis with instability.

METHODS

Between October 2006 and October 2010, 98 patients (61 men and 37 women) who had reached the three-year follow-up interval were treated with unilateral pedicle screw fixation at the authors' institution. All patients underwent two-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and the mean age was 59.6 years (range, 40-72). Visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to assess the pre-operative and postoperative clinical results. Fusion status, the disc space height, and the whole lumbar lordotic angle were analysed for the radiological evaluation.

RESULTS

The ODI scores decreased significantly in both early and late follow-up evaluations and the visual analog scale (VAS) score demonstrated significant improvement in late follow-up (P < 0.01). The disc space height (P < 0.05) and the whole lumbar lordotic angle (P < 0.05) were increased at the final follow-up. Successful fusion was achieved in all patients.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach using unilateral pedicle screw fixation for two-level lumbar stenosis with instability, which can maintain the lumbar lordosis and the disc space height, is an effective and less invasive method than with bilateral constructs.