Unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disorders: a prospective randomised study

Zhang, Kai; Sun, Wei; Zhao, Chang-Qing; Li, Hua; Ding, Wei; Xie, Yu; Sun, Xiaojiang; Zhao, Jie

doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2026-y

Cited by 46 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One patient in the UPS group and 3 patients in the BPS group developed superficial wound infections. Similar to results in previous studies [ 14 – 16 , 34 , 35 ], we also found there was no difference in terms of complication rate between the 2 procedures (UPS vs. BPS, 2.4% vs. 7.1%). Several meta-analyses also demonstrated that patients with UPS procedure experienced similar complication rates as those with BPS procedure.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Minimally Invasive Unilateral vs. Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation and Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Treatment of Multi-Segment Lumbar Degenerative Disorders

Liu

Wang

et al. 2015

Med Sci Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe choice for instrumentation with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in treatment of degenerative lumbar disorders (DLD) remains controversial. The goal of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes in consecutive patients with multi-segment DLD treated with unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) vs. bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) instrumented TLIF.Material/MethodsEighty-four consecutive patients who had multi-level MIS-TLIF were retrospectively reviewed. All data were collected to compare the clinical outcomes between the 2 groups.ResultsBoth groups showed similar clinical function scores in VAS and ODI. The two groups differed significantly in operative time (P<0.001), blood loss (P<0.001), and fusion rate (P=0.043), respectively.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated similar clinical outcomes between UPS fixation and BPS procedure after MIS-TLIF for multi-level DLD. Moreover, UPS technique was superior in operative time and blood loss, but represented lower fusion rate than the BPS construct did.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Minimally Invasive Unilateral vs. Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation and Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Treatment of Multi-Segment Lumbar Degenerative Disorders

Liu

Wang

et al. 2015

Med Sci Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reduced soft tissue dissection favors early recovery and rehabilitation [ 40 – 42 ]. Although no difference was shown in hospital stay in this study, some studies have reported that the hospital stay for unilateral fixation patients was shorter than that for bilateral fixation patients [ 26 , 43 , 44 ]. Therefore, unilateral fixation has a relative advantage in these 3 indexes.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 67%

“…Six studies [ 13 , 15 , 17 , 26 – 28 ] included data on hospital stay ( Figure 4 ). The pooled mean difference in hospital stay between the 2 groups was −2.56.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unilateral versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation for Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: A Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials

Yan¹

2015

Med Sci Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe common and effective treatment for degenerative lumbar diseases is lumbar spinal fusion. Controversy still exists on the choice for instrumentation with spinal fusion procedures. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis exclusively of RCTs to compare the clinical outcomes of patients receiving bilateral versus unilateral pedicle screw fixation (PSF).Material/MethodsAfter systematic review of published and unpublished literature, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the 2 treatment strategies. The methodological quality of the literature was assessed using the PEDro critical appraisal tool.ResultsData synthesis showed less blood loss (P<0.001) and shorter operative time (P<0.001) in patients receiving unilateral PSF compared to bilateral PSF. However, there was no significant difference in fusion rates and functional outcomes between the 2 groups.ConclusionsThe meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in fusion rates and functional outcomes between the 2 treatment procedures, but unilateral PS fixation reduced blood loss and operative time.

show abstract

“…Compared with the open procedure, MITLIF appears to achieve similar fusion rates while minimizing blood loss and tissue injury, causing smaller wounds, increasing the speed of recovery, and reducing postoperative pain [6][7][8][9]. Currently, there are a few studies [7,[9][10][11] which have reported the outcomes and benefits of MITLIF. However, these studies mainly focus on one-level TLIF, and comparisons of minimally invasive versus open TLIF in two-level degenerative lumbar disease are very limited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease

Zhang

Fan

et al. 2013

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disorders: a prospective randomised study

Cited by 46 publications

References 26 publications

Minimally Invasive Unilateral vs. Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation and Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Treatment of Multi-Segment Lumbar Degenerative Disorders

Minimally Invasive Unilateral vs. Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation and Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Treatment of Multi-Segment Lumbar Degenerative Disorders

Unilateral versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation for Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: A Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials

Comparison of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About