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

IF 2.1 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":2.1000,"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
单侧与双侧椎弓根螺钉固定微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
导读:微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(mis - tliff)采用正中切口和管状牵开器进行减压和椎间融合术,已广泛应用于腰椎退行性疾病(LDD)的手术中。双侧椎弓根螺钉固定(BPSF)和单侧椎弓根螺钉固定(UPSF)是MIS-TLIF的主要固定技术。我们对随机对照试验(rct)进行了最新的系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较了UPSF和BPSF在接受MIS-TLIF手术治疗LDD患者中的疗效和安全性。材料和方法:截至2023年6月,我们检索了PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库,寻找潜在的随机对照试验。采用奇比(RR)、风险差(RD)和平均差(MD), 95%置信区间(CI)和随机效应模型估计固定方法对临床结果的影响。结果:我们获得了6项随机对照试验。UPSF和BPSF在融合率、住院天数、腰痛、腿痛、Oswestry残疾指数、术后3-6个月和术后≥6个月的身体功能SF-36评分方面无显著差异。两种方法的总并发症和个别并发症均无差异。UPSF可显著缩短手术时间(MD = - 39.05;95% CI: - 53.50至- 24.67)和估计失血量(MD = - 60.41;95% CI: - 79.09 ~ - 41.73)。结论:考虑手术时间和预计出血量,UPSF优于BPSF。对于没有严重椎体滑脱的单节段LDD患者,可以考虑BPSF。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty through a medial parapatellar approach: surgical technique and mid-term results in 108 patients. Extra-long femoral heads as a surrogate marker for revision risk in primary total hip arthroplasty. Artificial intelligence in orthopedic trauma surgery: a scoping review of current applications and research gaps. Comparative evaluation of additively manufactured PLA models as cost-effective, non-inferior alternatives to composite bones for pull-out testing. Combined iPACK and adductor canal block versus two-level erector spinae plane block in elderly patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, triple-blinded clinical trial.
×
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:604180095
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