Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

Abstract

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goel VK, Lim TH, Gwon J, Chen JY et al (1991) Effects of rigidity of an internal fixation device. A comprehensive biomechanical investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16(3 Suppl):S155–S161

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. McAfee PC, Farey ID, Sutterlin CE, Gurr KR, Warden KE, Cunningham BW (1991) The effect of spinal implant rigidity on vertebral bone density. A canine model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16(6 Suppl):S190–S197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. McAfee PC, Farey ID, Sutterlin CE, Gurr KR, Warden KE, Cunningham BW (1989) 1989 Volvo award in basic science. Device-related osteoporosis with spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14(9):919–926

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nagata H, Schendel MJ, Transfeldt EE, Lewis JL (1993) The effects of immobilization of long segments of the spine on the adjacent and distal facet force and lumbosacral motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18(16):2471–2479

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(17):1938–1944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Shono Y, Kaneda K, Abumi K, McAfee PC, Cunningham BW (1998) Stability of posterior spinal instrumentation and its effects on adjacent motion segments in the lumbosacral spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(14):1550–1558

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V (2009) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33(6):1683–1688

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Deutsch H, Musacchio MJ Jr (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kasai Y, Inaba T, Kato T, Matsumura Y, Akeda K, Uchida A (2010) Biomechanical study of the lumbar spine using a unilateral pedicle screw fixation system. J Clin Neurosci 17(3):364–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang J, Zhou Y (2014) Perioperative complications related to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion: evaluation of 204 operations on lumbar instability at single center. Spine J 14(9):2078–2084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gu G, Zhang H, He S, Jia J, Fu Q, Zhou X (2013) Preoperative localization methods for minimally invasive surgery in lumbar spine: comparisons between a novel method and conventional methods. J Spinal Disord Tech 26(7):E277–E280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Quint DJ, Tuite GF, Stern JD, Doran SE et al (1997) Computer-assisted measurement of lumbar spine radiographs. Acad Radiol 4(11):742–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB (2012) Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21(11):2265–2270

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sethi A, Lee S, Vaidya R (2009) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar screw. Eur Spine J 18(3):430–434

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA (2002) Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 49:499–517

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB (2009) Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(13):1385–1389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(Suppl):S1–S6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A (2010) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 1:12

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J (2010) Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 19(10):1780–1784

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schleicher P, Beth P, Ottenbacher A, Pflugmacher R et al (2008) Biomechanical evaluation of different asymmetrical posterior stabilization methods for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 9(4):363–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(1):78–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yucesoy K, Yuksel 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(1):44–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fernandez-Fairen M, Sala P, Ramirez H, Gil J (2007) A prospective randomized study of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(4):395–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dahdaleh NS, Nixon AT, Lawton CD, Wong AP, Smith ZA, Fessler RG (2013) Outcome following unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center randomized prospective study. Neurosurg Focus 35(2):E13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sonmez E, Coven I, Sahinturk F, Yilmaz C, Caner H (2013) Unilateral percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation with minimally invasive TLIF for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disk disease: 2 years follow-up. Turk Neurosurg 23(3):372–378

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Suk KS, Lee HM, Kim NH, Ha JW (2000) Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(14):1843–1847

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Xue H, Tu Y, Cai M (2012) Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine J 12(3):209–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang K, Sun W, Zhao CQ, Li H et al (2014) Unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disorders: a prospective randomised study. Int Orthop 38(1):111–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mao L, Zhao J, Dai KR, Hua L, Sun XJ (2014) Bilateral decompression using a unilateral pedicle construct for lumbar stenosis. Int Orthop 38(3):573–578

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Yanchang Road 301, 200072, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

      Guangfei Gu, Hailong Zhang, Guoxin Fan, Shisheng He, Xiaotong Meng, Xin Gu, Ning Yan & Xiaofei Guan

    Authors
    1. Guangfei Gu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Hailong Zhang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Guoxin Fan
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Shisheng He
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Xiaotong Meng
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Xin Gu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    7. Ning Yan
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    8. Xiaofei Guan
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Shisheng He.

    Additional information

    G. Gu and H. Zhang 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

    Gu, G., Zhang, H., Fan, G. et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in two-level degenerative lumbar diseases. Eur Spine J 24, 1640–1648 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4031-x

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Revised:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4031-x

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation