Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
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, Yu-Jie Wu, Chiao-Wei Chang, Ka-Wai Tam, 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.
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).