Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with cage fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the results between unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation for the patients with degenerative lumbar diseases.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies were conducted between unilateral PS fixation with cage fusion (unilateral group) and bilateral PS fixation with cage fusion (bilateral group) for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases from 1990 to June 2014. An extensive search of studies was performed in PubMed, Mediline, Embase and the Cochrane library. The following outcome measures were extracted: visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Short-Form health survey (SF-36), fusion rate, complications, blood loss and operation time. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.0.

Results

Eight RCTs involving 545 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in terms of the VAS, ODI and SF-36 scores, fusion rate [OR = 0.49 (0.23, 1.04), P = 0.06], complication rate(implant-related complication: P = 0.35, general complication rate: P = 0.71) and blood loss between two groups. However, there was less operation time in the unilateral group compared with bilateral group. Four patients (1.48 %) in unilateral group and one patient (0.36 %) in bilateral group were found cage migration, the difference did not achieve statistical significance (P = 0.213).

Conclusions

As compared to bilateral PS fixation with cage fusion, unilateral PS fixation with cage fusion achieves a similar VAS, ODI and SF-36 scores, fusion rate, complications and smaller surgical trauma. However, it is still uncertain whether unilateral pedicle screw fixation with cage fusion is as effective and safe as bilateral pedicle screw fixation with cage fusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Meisel HJ, Schnoring M, Hohaus C, Minkus Y, Beier A, Ganey T, Mansmann U (2008) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using rhBMP-2. Eur Spine J 17:1735–1744. doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0799-2

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K, Kanayama M, Harada M, Oha F, Ohkoshi Y, Tada H, Yamamoto K, Yamane S (2002) Clinical results of single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F carbon cage filled with a mixture of local morselized bone and bioactive ceramic granules. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:258–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kai Y, Oyama M, Morooka M (2004) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using local facet joint autograft and pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:41–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Trouillier H, Birkenmaier C, Rauch A, Weiler C, Kauschke T, Refior HJ (2006) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with cages and local bone graft in the treatment of spinal stenosis. Acta Orthop Belg 72:460–466

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Suk KS, Lee HM, Kim NH, Ha JW (2000) Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine 25:1843–1847

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fernández-Fairen M, Sala P, Ramírez H, Gil J (2007) A prospective randomized study of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 32:395–401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mao L, Chen G, Xu X, Guo Z, Yang H (2013) Comparison of lumbar interbody fusion performed with unilateral or bilateral pedicle screw. Orthopedics 36:e489–e493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M (2009) 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine 34:1929–1941

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Xiaolong S, Lei W, Hailong Z, Xin G, Guangfei G, Shisheng H (2013) Radiographic analysis of one-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) with unilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases. J Spinal Disord Tech. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000042

  10. Shen X, Zhang H, Gu X, Gu G, Zhou X, He S (2014) Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci Off J Neurosurg Soc Australas 21(9):1612–1616

    Google Scholar 

  11. Duncan JW, Bailey RA (2013) An analysis of fusion cage migration in unilateral and bilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 22:439–445

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dahdaleh NS, Nixon AT, Lawton CD, Wong AP, A Z (2013) Outcome following unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in patients undergoing minimally invasive outcome following unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center randomized prospective study. Neurosurg Focus 35:E13

  13. Aoki Y, Yamagata M, Ikeda Y, Nakajima F, Ohtori S, Nakagawa K, Nakajima A, Toyone T, Orita S, Takahashi K (2012) A prospective randomized controlled study comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques for degenerative spondylolisthesis: unilateral pedicle screw and 1 cage versus bilateral pedicle screws and 2 cages: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 17:153–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Xie Y, Ma H, Li H, Ding W, Zhao C, Zhang P, Zhao J (2012) Comparative study of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthopedics 35:e1517–e1523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Xue H, Tu Y, Cai M (2012) Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine J 12:209–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lin B, Xu Y, He Y, Zhang B, Lin Q, He M (2013) Minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. Orthopedics 36:e1071–e1076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang K, Sun W, Zhao CQ, Li H, Ding W, Xie YZ, Sun XJ, Zhao J (2014) Unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disorders: a prospective randomised study. Int Orthop 38:111–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Choi UY, Park JY, Kim KH, Kuh SU, Chin DK, Kim KS, Cho YE (2013) Unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 35:E11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dong J, Rong L, Feng F, Liu B, Xu Y, Wang Q, Chen R, Xie P (2014) Unilateral pedicle screw fixation through a tubular retractor via the Wiltse approach compared with conventional bilateral pedicle screw fixation for single-segment degenerative lumbar instability: a prospective randomized study: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 20:53–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O’Brien MF, Smith DA (2002) Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech 15:31–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Feng Z, Cao Y, Jiang C, Jiang X (2011) Short-term outcome of bilateral decompression via a unilateral paramedian approach for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Orthopedics 34:364

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kabins MB, Weinstein JN, Spratt KF, Found EM, Goel VK, Woody J, Sayre HA (1992) Isolated L4-L5 fusions using the variable screw placement system: unilateral versus bilateral. J Spinal Disord Tech 5:39–49

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Harris BM, Hilibrand AS, Savas PE, Pellegrino A, Vaccaro AR, Siegler S, Albert TJ (2004) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 29:E65–E70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Slucky AV, Brodke DS, Bachus KN, Droge JA, Braun JT (2006) Less invasive posterior fixation method following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Spine J 6:78–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sethi A, Muzumdar AM, Ingalhalikar A, Vaidya R (2011) Biomechanical analysis of a novel posterior construct in a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion model an in vitro study. Spine J 11:863–869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yücesoy K, Yüksel KZ, Baek S, Sonntag VK, Crawford NR (2008) Biomechanics of unilateral compared with bilateral lumbar pedicle screw fixation for stabilization of unilateral vertebral disease. J Neurosurg Spine 8:44–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen H, Cheung H, Wang W, Li A, Li K (2005) Biomechanical analysis of unilateral fixation with interbody cages. Spine 30:E92–E96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Han Y, Liu Z, Wang S, Li L, Tan J (2014) Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 23:974–984

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Aoki Y, Yamagata M, Nakajima F, Ikeda Y, Shimizu K, Yoshihara M, Iwasaki J, Toyone T, Nakagawa K, Nakajima A (2010) Examining risk factors for posterior migration of fusion cages following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a possible limitation of unilateral pedicle screw fixation: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:381–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Smith AJ, Arginteanu M, Moore F, Steinberger A, Camins M (2010) Increased incidence of cage migration and nonunion in instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bioabsorbable cages: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:388–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Abbushi A, Čabraja M, Thomale U, Woiciechowsky C, Kroppenstedt SN (2009) The influence of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion rates in patients with monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation. Eur Spine J 18:1621–1628

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Aoki Y, Yamagata M, Nakajima F, Ikeda Y, Takahashi K (2009) Posterior migration of fusion cages in degenerative lumbar disease treated with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a report of three patients. Spine 34:E54–E58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Knox CJB, Dai CJM III, Orchowski LJ (2011) Osteolysis in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bone morphogenetic protein-2. Spine 36:672–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kimura H, Shikata J, Odate S, Soeda T, Yamamura S (2012) Risk factors for cage retropulsion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of 1070 cases. Spine 37:1164–1169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mroz TE, Wang JC, Hashimoto R, Norvell DC (2010) Complications related to osteobiologics use in spine surgery: a systematic review. Spine 35:S86–S104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Vaidya R, Sethi A, Bartol S, Jacobson M, Coe C, Craig JG (2008) Complications in the use of rhBMP-2 in PEEK cages for interbody spinal fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:557–562. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31815ea897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Beringer WF, Mobasser J (2006) Unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 20:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dickman CA, Yahiro MA, Lu H, Melkerson MN (1994) Surgical treatment alternatives for fixation of unstable fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine: a meta-analysis. Spine 19:2266S–2273S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Haher TR, Merola A, Zipnick RI, Gorup J, Mannor D, Orchowski J (1995) Meta-analysis of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a 35-year English literature review of 11,000 patients. Spine 20:1575–1584

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Spine Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Shuangyong Road No. 6, Nanning, 530021, China

    Shan-Wen Xiao, Hua Jiang, Li-Jing Yang & Zeng-Ming Xiao

Authors
  1. Shan-Wen Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hua Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Li-Jing Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zeng-Ming Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeng-Ming Xiao.

Additional information

S.-W. Xiao, H. Jiang contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xiao, SW., Jiang, H., Yang, LJ. et al. Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with cage fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 24, 764–774 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3717-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3717-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation