Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis
- 987 Downloads
Traditionally, lumbar spinal surgery is performed with bilateral pedicle screw fixation to provide stability as the fusion heals. However, many studies have reported that unilateral pedicle screw fixation is as effective as bilateral constructs. To compare the clinical outcomes, complications, and surgical trauma between the two techniques for treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases, we conducted a meta-analysis.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for relevant controlled studies up to August 2013 that compared unilateral with bilateral fixation for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. We independently performed title/abstract screening and full-text screening. A random effects model was used for heterogeneous data; otherwise, a fixed effect model was used, pooling data using mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes.
A total of 12 articles (865 participants) were eligible. Overall, there were significant differences between the two groups for blood loss (MD = −171.73, 95 % CI = −281.70 to −61.76; p = 0.002), operation time (MD = −66.02, 95 % CI = −115.52 to −16.51; p = 0.009), and fusion rate (OR = 0.50, 95 % CI = 0.26–0.96; p = 0.004). However, there were no significant differences in hospital stay (MD = −4.44, 95 % CI = −13.37 to 4.50), ODI (MD = −0.09, 95 % CI = −0.59 to 0.42; p = 0.74), JOA (MD = 0.18, 95 % CI = −0.77 to 1.14; p = 0.71), VAS (MD = −0.04, 95 % CI = −0.16 to 0.08; p = 0.49), SF-36 (PF: MD = −1.11, 95 % CI = −4.38 to 2.17, p = 0.51; GH: MD = 1.22, 95 % CI = −2.17 to 4.60, p = 0.48; MH: MD = −0.22, 95 % CI = −3.83 to 3.38, p = 0.90) and complications (OR = 1.15, 95 % CI = 0.72–1.85; p = 0.56).
This meta-analysis shows that there was significantly less blood loss in unilateral group and less operating time; however, the fusion rate was significantly higher in the bilateral group. The outcomes of hospital stay, ODI, JOA, VAS, SF-36 score, and complications are similar in the two groups.
KeywordsUnilateral Bilateral Pedicle screw fixation Degenerative lumbar diseases Meta-analysis
Conflict of interest
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. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- 18.Chen SH, Lin SC, Tsai WC, Wang CW, Chao SH (2012) Biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws fixation for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion after decompressive surgery—a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13:72. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-72 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Katz JN, Lipson SJ, Lew RA, Grobler LJ, Weinstein JN, Brick GW, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1997) Lumbar laminectomy alone or with instrumented or noninstrumented arthrodesis in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patient selection, costs, and surgical outcomes. Spine 22:1123–1131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Kai Z, Wei S, Chang-Qing Z, Hua L, Wei D, You-Zhuan X, Xiao-Jiang S, Jie Z (2013) Unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disorders: a prospective randomised study. Int Orthop. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2026-y PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Duncan JW, Bailey RA (2013) An analysis of fusion cage migration in unilateral and bilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J: Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deformity Soc Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc 22:439–445. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2458-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.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. J Neurosurg Spine 17:153–159. doi: 10.3171/2012.5.SPINE111044 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Mazel C (1986) Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating. Clin Orthop Relat Res :7–17. doi: 10.1097/00003086-198602000-00003
- 36.Krag MH, Beynnon BD, Pope MH, Frymoyer JW, Haugh LD, Weaver DL (1986) An internal fixator for posterior application to short segments of the thoracic, lumbar, or lumbosacral spine. Design and testing. Clin Orthop Relat Res :75–98. doi: 10.1097/00003086-198602000-00011
- 37.Dhall SS, Wang MY, Mummaneni PV (2008) Clinical and radiographic comparison of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in 42 patients with long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 9:560–565. doi: 10.3171/SPI.2008.9.08142 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar