Dataset Information

Clinical and radiographic analysis of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented one-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

ABSTRACT: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a widely applied and useful procedure for spinal surgeries. However, posterior fixation has not yet been decided. We compared the radiographic and clinical outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented one-level LLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 100 patients, who underwent unilateral (group U) or bilateral (group B) instrumented one-level LLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. Forty-one patients in group U were undergoing unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation, and 59 patients in group B were undergoing bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation. Clinical characteristic and demographic data before surgery were compared. The intraoperative data, including operative time with changes in positions, intraoperative blood loss, and X-ray exposure time, as well as the perioperative data, including postoperative hospital stay and clinical and radiographic data were compared. As a result, Group U required a significantly shorter operating time than group B. The subsidence grade and fusion rates exhibited no significant differences in the postoperative radiographic evaluation. Group U had better results in clinical assessments than group B. However, group U required more additional surgeries owing to complications.

SUBMITTER: Fukushima M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7033185 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical and radiographic analysis of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented one-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Fukushima Masayoshi M Oshima Yasushi Y Yuzawa Yohei Y Tanaka Sakae S Inanami Hirohiko H

Scientific reports 20200220 1

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a widely applied and useful procedure for spinal surgeries. However, posterior fixation has not yet been decided. We compared the radiographic and clinical outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented one-level LLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 100 patients, who underwent unilateral (group U) or bilateral (group B) instrumented one-level LLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. Forty-one patients in gro ...[more]

PMID: 32080245

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. In the present study, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of these two procedures.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed, and the quality of retrieved studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Clinical outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate and complications, in addition to radiographic outcomes, including restoration of disc height, disc angle, overall lumbar lordosis, fusion rate and subsidence, were extracted and input into a fixed or random effect model to compare the efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.ResultsSeven qualified studies were included. Clinically, OLIF resulted in less intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation time than MIS-TLIF. Improvement of VAS for leg pain was more obvious in the OLIF group (P < 0.0001), whereas improvement of VAS for back pain (P = 0.08) and ODI (P = 0.98) as well as JOABPEQ effectiveness rate (P = 0.18) were similar in the two groups. Radiographically, OLIF was more effective in restoring disc height (P = 0.01) and equivalent in improving the disc angle (P = 0.18) and lumbar lordosis (P = 0.48) compared with MIS-TLIF. The fusion rate (P = 0.11) was similar in both groups, while the subsidence was more severe in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.00001).ConclusionsThe above evidence suggests that OLIF is associated with a shorter operation time (with supplementary fixation in the prone position) and less intraoperative blood loss than MIS-TLIF and can lead to better leg pain alleviation, disc height restoration and subsidence resistance. No differences regarding back pain relief, functional recovery, complications, disc angle restoration, lumbar lordosis restoration and fusion rate were found. However, due to the limited number of studies, our results should be confirmed with high-level studies to fully compare the therapeutic efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.Trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD42020201903 .

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:Background The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of unilateral vs. bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) for lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods Electronic databases including PubMed, Web of science, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO were searched by computer. The deadline was set for June 1, 2022. This study included all high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective clinical controlled studies (PRO), and retrospective studies (Retro) that compared unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Revman5.3 software was used for meta-analysis after two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the study. Results Fourteen studies with a total of 1,086 patients were included. Compared with BPSF, unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) has shorter operation time and hospital time, and less blood loss and operation cost, operation time [SMD = −1.75, 95% CI (−2.46 to −1.03), P < 0.00001], hospital time [SMD = −1.10, 95% CI (−1.97 to −0.22), P = 0.01], Blood loss [SMD = −1.62, 95% CI (−2.42 to −0.82), P < 0.0001], operation cost [SMD = −14.03, 95% CI (−20.08 to −7.98), P < 0.00001], the ODI after bilateral pedicle screw fixation was lower, and the degree of lumbar dysfunction was lighter, [SMD = 0.19, 95% CI (0.05–0.33), P = 0.007], better fusion effect, fusion rate [RR=0.95, 95% CI (0.91–1.00), P = 0.04]. VAS-Low back pain [SMD = 0.07, 95% CI (−0.07–0.20), P = 0.35], VAS-Leg pain [SMD = 0.18, 95% CI (−0.00–0.36), P = 0.05], SF-36 [SMD = 0.00, 95% CI (−0.30–0.30), P = 1.00], complications rate [RR = 0.94, 95% CI (0.9154–1.63), P = 0.82], the overall difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions Currently limited evidence suggests that UPSF significantly reduces blood loss, significantly shortens the operative time and hospital stay, and reduces blood loss and costs. After BPSF, the ODI was lower, the degree of lumbar spine dysfunction was lower, and the fusion rate was significantly higher. The VAS, SF-36, and complications scores of the two groups were comparable, and there was no significant clinical difference.

Dataset Information

Clinical and radiographic analysis of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented one-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Publications

Clinical and radiographic analysis of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented one-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets