A Comparison Study of Three Posterior Fixation Strategies in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Lumbar for the Treatment of Degenerative Diseases

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.