Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 974–984 | Cite as

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

  • Ying-Chao Han
  • Zhu-Qing Liu
  • Shan-Jin Wang
  • Li-Jun Li
  • Jun Tan
Review Article

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Unilateral Bilateral Pedicle screw fixation Degenerative lumbar diseases Meta-analysis 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Shekelle PG, Markovich M, Louie R (1995) An epidemiologic study of episodes of back pain care. Spine 20:1668–1673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deyo RA, Nachemson A, Mirza SK (2004) Spinal-fusion surgery—the case for restraint. New Engl J Med 350:722–726. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb031771 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yuan HA, Garfin SR, Dickman CA, Mardjetko SM (1994) A historical cohort study of pedicle screw fixation in thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spinal fusions. Spine 19:2279S–2296SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bridwell KH, Sedgewick TA, O’Brien MF, Lenke LG, Baldus C (1993) The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 6:461–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bagby GW (1988) Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. Orthopedics 11:931–934PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A, Brantigan JW (2007) Is one cage enough in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of unilateral single cage interbody fusion to bilateral cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:60–65. doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000211251.59953.a4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zdeblick TA (1993) A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Preliminary results. Spine 18:983–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beringer WF, Mobasser JP (2006) Unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 20:E4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sethi A, Lee S, Vaidya R (2009) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar screw. Eur Spine J: Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deformity Soc Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc 18:430–434. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0825-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rechtine GR, Sutterlin CE, Wood GW, Boyd RJ, Mansfield FL (1996) The efficacy of pedicle screw/plate fixation on lumbar/lumbosacral autogenous bone graft fusion in adult patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord 9:382–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mardjetko SM, Connolly PJ, Shott S (1994) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. A meta-analysis of literature 1970–1993. Spine 19:2256S–2265SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xiao YX, Chen QX, Li FC (2009) Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of the technique, indications and graft materials. J Int Med Res 37:908–917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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–E70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hall JM, Polly DW Jr, Kuklo TR (2005) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:337–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 14:919–926PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 16:S190–S197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goel VK, Lim TH, Gwon J, Chen JY, Winterbottom JM, Park JB, Weinstein JN, Ahn JY (1991) Effects of rigidity of an internal fixation device. A comprehensive biomechanical investigation. Spine 16:S155–S161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    Kuntz KM, Snider RK, Weinstein JN, Pope MH, Katz JN (2000) Cost-effectiveness of fusion with and without instrumentation for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine 25:1132–1139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Suk KS, Lee HM, Kim NH, Ha JW (2000) Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine 25:1843–1847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 5:39–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 32:395–401. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000255023.56466.44 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhao J, Zhang F, Chen X, Yao Y (2011) Posterior interbody fusion using a diagonal cage with unilateral transpedicular screw fixation for lumbar stenosis. J Clin Neurosci: Off J Neurosurg Soc Aust 18:324–328. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2010.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M, Editorial Board CBRG (2009) 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine 34:1929–1941. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b1c99f PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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. doi: 10.3171/2013.2.FOCUS12398 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 28.
    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. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20130724-26 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xue H, Tu Y, Cai M (2012) Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine J: Off J North Am Spine Soc 12:209–215. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.01.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20120919-22 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. 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
  33. 33.
    Feng ZZ, Cao YW, Jiang C, Jiang XX (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. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20110317-05 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mao L, Chen GD, Xu XM, Guo Z, Yang HL (2013) Comparison of lumbar interbody fusion performed with unilateral or bilateral pedicle screw. Orthopedics 36:e489–e493. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20130327-28 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. 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. 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
  38. 38.
    Armin SS, Holly LT, Khoo LT (2008) Minimally invasive decompression for lumbar stenosis and disc herniation. Neurosurg Focus 25:E11. doi: 10.3171/FOC/2008/25/8/E11 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Guiot BH, Khoo LT, Fessler RG (2002) A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine. Spine 27:432–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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: Off J North Am Spine Soc 6:78–85. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chen HH, Cheung HH, Wang WK, Li A, Li KC (2005) Biomechanical analysis of unilateral fixation with interbody cages. Spine 30:E92–E96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Spinal Surgery, East HospitalTongji University School of MedicineShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Medical Oncology, Shanghai Tenth People’s HospitalTongji University School of MedicineShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations