Dataset Information

Unilateral versus Bilateral Instrumentation in Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Study Design?Systematic review. Clinical Questions?(1) What is the comparative efficacy of unilateral instrumentation compared with bilateral instrumentation in spine surgery? (2) What is the safety of unilateral instrumentation compared with bilateral instrumentation in spine surgery? Methods?Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched up to September 30, 2014, to identify studies reporting the comparative efficacy and safety of unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in spine surgery. Studies including recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 as adjunct therapy and those with follow-up of less than 2 years were excluded. Results?Ten randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria: five compared unilateral with bilateral instrumentation using open transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF), one used open posterolateral fusion, and four used minimally invasive TLIF/PLIF. There were no significant differences between unilateral and bilateral screw instrumentation with respect to nonunion, low back or leg pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation, or complications. Conclusions?The existing literature does not identify significant differences in clinical outcomes, union rates, and complications when unilateral instrumentation is used for degenerative pathologic conditions in the lumbar spine. The majority of published reports involve single-level lumbar unilateral instrumentation.

SUBMITTER: Molinari RW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4472301 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Unilateral versus Bilateral Instrumentation in Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Molinari Robert W RW Saleh Ahmed A Molinari Robert R Hermsmeyer Jeff J Dettori Joseph R JR

Global spine journal 20150601 3

Study Design Systematic review. Clinical Questions (1) What is the comparative efficacy of unilateral instrumentation compared with bilateral instrumentation in spine surgery? (2) What is the safety of unilateral instrumentation compared with bilateral instrumentation in spine surgery? Methods Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched up to September 30, 2014, to identify studies reporting the comparative efficacy and safety of unilateral versus bilateral instrumenta ...[more]

PMID: 26131385

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImmediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS), the cataract surgery that is performed in both eyes simultaneously, is gaining popularity worldwide compared to the traditional treatment paradigm: delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS), the surgery that is performed in each eye on a different day as a completely separate operation. ISBCS provides advantages to patients and patients' families in the form of fewer hospital visits. Additionally, patients enjoy rapid rehabilitation, lack of anisometropia - potentially reducing accidents and falls, and avoid suboptimal visual function in daily life. The hospital may benefit due to lower cost.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate ISBCS and DSBCS.Data sourcesDatabases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED), ISI Web of Science (Thomson-Reuters) and the Cochrane Library were searched.ParticipantsNot applicable.MethodsLiterature was systematically reviewed using EPPI-Reviewer 4 gateway. Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA v. 13.0. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were computed based on heterogeneity. Meta-analysis was done by instrument used to calculate utility score.ResultsIn total, 9,133 records were retrieved from multiple databases and an additional 128 records were identified through grey literature search. Eleven articles with 3,657 subjects were included for analysis. Our meta-analysis results indicated significant improvement in post-operative utility score using TTO, EQ5D, HUI3, VF-7, and VF-14 and a non-significant improvement using Catquest questionnaire for both surgeries. For ISBCS versus DSBCS, utility-specific fixed-effect model provided an overall SMD of the utility score using the TTO method as 0.12 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.40), EQ5D as 0.14 (95% CI: -0.14, 0.41), HUI3 as 0.12 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.40), VF-7 as -0.02 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.10), and Catquest Questionnaire as 1.45 (95% CI: -0.88, 2.01). The results for utility score, which were measured using various instruments, indicated non-significant improvement in the utility due to DSBCS compared to ISBCS. However, a significant improvement in post-operative utility score was seen using Catquest questionnaire for ISBCS compared to DSBCS. The included studies using VF-14 instrument were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 97.1%). Results provided SMD of -0.25 (95% CI:-1.06, 0.57) using VF-14 indicating non-significant improvement in the utility due to DSBCS compared to ISBCS surgery. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) significantly improved after both surgeries (overall SMD of BCVA due to ISBCS was -1.79 (95% CI: -2.45, -1.14) and due to DSBCS was -1.53 (95% CI: -2.25, -0.81)). A non-significant improvement was seen in BCVA due to ISBCS when compared to DSBCS (SMD = -0.18; 95% CI: -0.37, 0.01).ConclusionBoth surgeries, ISBCS and DSBCS significantly improve patients' quality of life and visual acuity. Further, ISBCS may deliver certain additional benefits at the individual and societal levels as well.

Project description:BackgroundTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become one of the most widely used procedures for lumbar spinal disorders. However, it is still unclear whether TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation is as effective as that with bilateral PS fixation. We performed a meta-analysis of the literatures and aimed to gain a better understanding of whether TLIF with unilateral PS fixation was safe and effective for lumbar diseases.Methodology/principal findingsWe systematically searched Ovid, Springer, and Medline databases for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral PS fixation in TLIF. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We generated pooled risk ratios or weighted mean differences across studies. According to our predefined inclusion criteria, seven RCTs with a total of 441 patients were included in this study. Baseline characteristics were similar between the unilateral and bilateral groups. Our meta-analysis showed that no significant difference was detected between the two groups in terms of postoperative clinical function, fusion status, reoperation rate, complication rate, and hospital stay (p>0.05). Pooled estimates revealed that the unilateral group was associated with significantly reduced implant cost, operative time and blood loss (p<0.05).Conclusions/significancesOur meta-analysis suggested TLIF with unilateral PS fixation was as safe and effective as that with bilateral PS fixation for lumbar diseases in selected patients. Despite these findings, our meta-analysis was based on studies with small sample size and different study characteristics that might lead to the inconsistent results such as various functional outcomes among the included studies. Therefore, high-quality randomized controlled trials with larger sample size are also needed to further clarify these issues and to provide the long-term outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the decannulation rate (DR) and revision surgery rate after surgery for bilateral vocal fold paralysis (BVFP).Data sourcesFive databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus) were searched for the period 1908-2020.MethodsThe systematic literature review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data were pooled using a random-mixed-effects model. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies (case-control, cohort, and case series) were included to assess DR and revision surgery rate after different surgical techniques for treatment of BVFP.ResultsThe search yielded 857 publications, of which 102 with 2802 patients were included. DR after different types of surgery was: arytenoid abduction (DR 0.93, 95%-confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.97), endolaryngeal arytenoidectomy (DR 0.92, 95%-CI, 0.86-0.96), external arytenoidectomy (DR 0.94; 95%-CI, 0.71-0.99), external arytenoidectomy and lateralisation (DR 0.87; 95%-CI, 0.73-0.94), laterofixation (DR 0.95; 95%-CI, 0.91-0.97), posterior cordectomy (DR 0.97, 95%-CI, 0.94-0.99), posterior cordectomy and arytenoidectomy (DR 0.98, 95%-CI, 0.93-0.99), posterior cordectomy and subtotal arytenoidectomy (DR 0.98, 95%-CI, 0.88-1.00), posterior cordotomy (DR 0.96, 95%-CI, 0.84-0.99), reinnervation (0.69, 95%-CI, 0.12-0.97), subtotal arytenoidectomy (DR 1.00, 95%-CI, 0.00-1.00) and transverse cordotomy (DR 1.0, 95%-CI, 0.00-1.00). No significant difference between subgroups for DR could be found (Q = 15.67, df = 11, p = 0.1540). The between-study heterogeneity was low (τ2 = 2.2627; τ = 1.5042; I2 = 0.0%). Studies were at high risk of bias.ConclusionBLVP is a rare disease and the study quality is insufficient. The existing studies suggest a publication bias and the literature review revealed that there is a lack of prospective controlled studies. There is a lack of standardized measures that takes into account both speech quality and respiratory function and allows adequate comparison of surgical methods.

Dataset Information

Unilateral versus Bilateral Instrumentation in Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Unilateral versus Bilateral Instrumentation in Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets