Comparative Analysis of Unilateral versus Bilateral Instrumentation in TLIF for Lumbar Degenerative Disorder: Single Center Large Series

被引:8
作者
Badikillaya, Vigneshwara [1 ]
Akbari, Keyur K. [1 ]
Sudarshan, Pramod [2 ]
Suthar, Hardik [3 ]
Venkatesan, Muralidharan [1 ]
Hegde, Sajan K. [1 ]
机构
[1] Apollo Hosp, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
[2] Aster MIMS Hosp, Kozhikode, India
[3] BJ Med Coll, Ahmadabad, Gujarat, India
关键词
unilateral pedicle screw fixation; lumbar fusion; interbody fusion; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; PEDICLE SCREW FIXATION; INTERBODY FUSION; INTERNAL-FIXATION; SPINAL-FUSION; RISK-FACTORS; POSTERIOR; PAIN; OUTCOMES; SURGERY; CAGES;
D O I
10.14444/8121
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation is a well-accepted technique in lumbar degenerative disc disorder. Unilateral instrumentation in TLIF has been reported in the literature. This study aims to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral and bilateral instrumented TLIF in a selected series of patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients operated with unilateral pedicle screw fixation in TLIF (UPSF TLIF) or with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in TLIF (BPSF TLIF) with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Patients were evaluated at regular intervals for functional and radiological outcomes. Functional outcome was assessed using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog score (VAS) preoperatively and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. Fusion rates were assessed using Bridwell interbody fusion grading. Results: Our study shows that there was a significant improvement in VAS and ODI in both groups at 2 years follow-up, and there was no significant difference in improvements between the groups. The complication rates between the groups were similar. The fusion rate in UPSF TLIF was 97.3% and was 98.34% in BPSF TLIF; this was not statistically significant between groups. There is a significant difference in terms of blood loss, duration of surgery, and average duration of hospital stay between the groups (P < .001), favoring UPSF TLIF. Conclusions: Unilateral pedicle screw fixation in open TLIF is comparable with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in terms of patient-reported clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complication rates with the additional benefits of less operative time, less blood loss, shorter hospitalization, and less cost in selective cases.
引用
收藏
页码:929 / 936
页数:9
相关论文
共 51 条
  • [1] 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 Clinical article
    Aoki, Yasuchika
    Yamagata, Masatsune
    Ikeda, Yoshikazu
    Nakajima, Fumitake
    Ohtori, Seiji
    Nakagawa, Koichi
    Nakajima, Arata
    Toyone, Tomoaki
    Orita, Sumihisa
    Takahashi, Kazuhisa
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2012, 17 (02) : 153 - 159
  • [2] Examining risk factors for posterior migration of fusion cages following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a possible limitation of unilateral pedicle screw fixation Clinical article
    Aoki, Yasuchika
    Yamagata, Masatsune
    Nakajima, Fumitake
    Ikeda, Yoshikazu
    Smmizu, Koh
    Yoshihara, Masakazu
    Iwasaki, Junichi
    Toyone, Tomoaki
    Nakagawa, Koichi
    Nakajima, Arata
    Takahashi, Kazuhisa
    Ohtori, Seiji
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2010, 13 (03) : 381 - 387
  • [3] Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Unilateral Pedicle and Contralateral Facet Screws for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis
    Awad, Basem I.
    Lubelski, Daniel
    Shin, John H.
    Carmody, Margaret A.
    Hoh, Daniel J.
    Mroz, Thomas E.
    Steinmetz, Michael P.
    [J]. GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2013, 3 (04) : 225 - 230
  • [4] BRIDWELL KH, 1995, SPINE, V20, P1410, DOI 10.1097/00007632-199520120-00014
  • [5] Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Disk Disease and Spondylolisthesis Grade I Minimally Invasive Versus Open Surgery
    Brodano, Giovanni B.
    Martikos, Konstantinos
    Lolli, Francesco
    Gasbarrini, Alessandro
    Cioni, Alfredo
    Bandiera, Stefano
    Di Silvestre, Mario
    Boriani, Stefano
    Greggi, Tiziana
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2015, 28 (10): : E559 - E564
  • [6] Unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Choi, Un Yong
    Park, Jeong Yoon
    Kim, Kyung Hyun
    Kuh, Sung Uk
    Chin, Dong Kyu
    Kim, Keun Su
    Cho, Yong Eun
    [J]. NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2013, 35 (02)
  • [7] Clapham L M, 1999, Clin Perform Qual Health Care, V7, P167, DOI 10.1108/14664109910315587
  • [8] Outcome following unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center randomized prospective study
    Dahdaleh, Nader S.
    Nixon, Alexander T.
    Lawton, Cort D.
    Wong, Albert P.
    Smith, Zachary A.
    Fessler, Richard G.
    [J]. NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2013, 35 (02)
  • [9] Spinal-fusion surgery - The case for restraint
    Deyo, RA
    Nachemson, A
    Mirza, SK
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2004, 350 (07) : 722 - 726
  • [10] 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
    Dhall, Sanjay S.
    Wang, Michael Y.
    Mummaneni, Praveen V.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2008, 9 (06) : 560 - 565