Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1007/s00402-024-05749-w
Chun-Hao Lin, Yu-Jie Wu, Chiao-Wei Chang, Ka-Wai Tam, El-Wui Loh
{"title":"Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Chun-Hao Lin,&nbsp;Yu-Jie Wu,&nbsp;Chiao-Wei Chang,&nbsp;Ka-Wai Tam,&nbsp;El-Wui Loh","doi":"10.1007/s00402-024-05749-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) that adopts paramedian incisions and tubular retractors to perform the decompression and interbody fusion has been widely used in the surgery for lumber degenerative disease (LDD). Bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) and unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) are the primary fixing techniques in MIS-TLIF. We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety between UPSF and BPSF in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF surgery for LDD.</p><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for potential RCTs till June 2023. The effects of the fixation methods on clinical outcomes were estimated using the odd ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and a random-effects model.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>We obtained six RCTs. There was no significant difference between UPSF and BPSF in fusion rate, hospitalization day, low back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and SF-36 for physical functioning at 3–6 months and ≥ 6 months after surgery. Neither the total complication nor the individual complications showed differences between the two methods. However, UPSF significantly decreased operation time (MD = − 39.05; 95% CI: − 53.50 to − 24.67) and estimated blood loss (MD = − 60.41; 95% CI: − 79.09 to − 41.73) compared with BPSF.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>UPSF is better than BPSF when operation time and estimated blood loss are considered. BPSF may be considered for patients with single-level LDD without high-grade spondylolisthesis.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8326,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","volume":"145 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-024-05749-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) that adopts paramedian incisions and tubular retractors to perform the decompression and interbody fusion has been widely used in the surgery for lumber degenerative disease (LDD). Bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) and unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) are the primary fixing techniques in MIS-TLIF. We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety between UPSF and BPSF in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF surgery for LDD.

Materials and methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for potential RCTs till June 2023. The effects of the fixation methods on clinical outcomes were estimated using the odd ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and a random-effects model.

Results

We obtained six RCTs. There was no significant difference between UPSF and BPSF in fusion rate, hospitalization day, low back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and SF-36 for physical functioning at 3–6 months and ≥ 6 months after surgery. Neither the total complication nor the individual complications showed differences between the two methods. However, UPSF significantly decreased operation time (MD = − 39.05; 95% CI: − 53.50 to − 24.67) and estimated blood loss (MD = − 60.41; 95% CI: − 79.09 to − 41.73) compared with BPSF.

Conclusion

UPSF is better than BPSF when operation time and estimated blood loss are considered. BPSF may be considered for patients with single-level LDD without high-grade spondylolisthesis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
424
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is a rich source of instruction and information for physicians in clinical practice and research in the extensive field of orthopaedics and traumatology. The journal publishes papers that deal with diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system from all fields and aspects of medicine. The journal is particularly interested in papers that satisfy the information needs of orthopaedic clinicians and practitioners. The journal places special emphasis on clinical relevance. "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is the official journal of the German Speaking Arthroscopy Association (AGA).
期刊最新文献
Postoperative muscle atrophy and fatty degeneration with respect to surgical approaches in total hip arthroplasty Distal femoral osteotomy for the treatment of chronic patellofemoral instability improves gait patterns Efficacy of a novel, fluoroscopy-based robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty system in restoring limb length and offset Scaphocapitate fusion in stage III Kienböck’s disease: effects of lunarectomy on postoperative pain and function Clinical added value of 3D printed patient-specific guides in orthopedic surgery (excluding knee arthroplasty): a systematic review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1