Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Unilateral Pedicle and Contralateral Facet Screws for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Awad BI
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3854596 | biostudies-other | 2013 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is increasingly popular for the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar disc diseases. The constructs intended for segmental stability are varied in MI-TLIF. We adopted finite element (FE) analysis to compare the stability after different construct fixations using interbody cage with posterior pedicle screw-rod or pedicle screw-plate instrumentation system.MethodsA L3-S1 FE model was modified to simulate decompression and fusion at L4-L5 segment. Fixation modes included unilateral plate (UP), unilateral rod (UR), bilateral plate (BP), bilateral rod (BR) and UP+UR fixation. The inferior surface of the S1 vertebra remained immobilized throughout the load simulation, and a bending moment of 7.5 Nm with 400N pre-load was applied on the L3 vertebra to recreate flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Range of motion (ROM) and Von Mises stress were evaluated for intact and instrumentation models in all loading planes.ResultsAll reconstructive conditions displayed decreased motion at L4-L5. The pedicle screw-plate system offered equal ROM to pedicle screw-rod system in unilateral or bilateral fixation modes respectively. Pedicle screw stresses for plate system were 2.2 times greater than those for rod system in left lateral bending under unilateral fixation. Stresses for plate were 3.1 times greater than those for rod in right axial rotation under bilateral fixation. Stresses on intervertebral graft for plate system were similar to rod system in unilateral and bilateral fixation modes respectively. Increased ROM and posterior instrumentation stresses were observed in all loading modes with unilateral fixation compared with bilateral fixation in both systems.ConclusionsTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion augmentation with pedicle screw-plate system fixation increases fusion construct stability equally to the pedicle screw-rod system. Increased posterior instrumentation stresses are observed in all loading modes with plate fixation, and bilateral fixation could reduce stress concentration.
| S-EPMC4674154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. BACKGROUND: Bilateral pedicle screw fixation (PS) after lumbar interbody fusion is a widely accepted method of managing various spinal diseases. Recently, unilateral PS fixation has been reported as effective as bilateral PS fixation. This meta-analysis aimed to comparatively assess the efficacy and safety of unilateral PS fixation and bilateral PS fixation in the minimally invasive (MIS) lumbar interbody fusion for one-level degenerative lumbar spine disease. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, and Cochrane Library were searched through March 30, 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on unilateral versus bilateral PS fixation in MIS lumbar interbody fusion that met the inclusion criteria and the methodological quality standard were retrieved and reviewed. Data on participant characteristics, interventions, follow-up period, and outcomes were extracted from the included studies and analyzed by Review Manager 5.2. RESULTS: Six studies (5 RCTs and 1 CCT) involving 298 patients were selected. There were no significant differences between unilateral and bilateral PS fixation procedures in fusion rate, complications, visual analogue score (VAS) for leg pain, VAS for back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI). Both fixation procedures had similar length of hospital stay (MD?=?0.38, 95% CI?=?-0.83 to 1.58; P?=?0.54). In contrast, bilateral PS fixation was associated with significantly more intra-operative blood loss (P?=?0.002) and significantly longer operation time (P?=?0.02) as compared with unilateral PS fixation. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral PS fixation appears as effective and safe as bilateral PS fixation in MIS lumbar interbody fusion but requires less operative time and causes less blood loss, thus offering a simple alternative approach for one-level lumbar degenerative disease.
| S-EPMC4223107 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3906181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has been widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disorders and shows favourable clinical results. Recently, cortical bone trajectory (CBT) has become a new trajectory for screw insertion in the lumbar spine. Several biomechanical studies have demonstrated that the CBT technique achieves screw purchase and strength greater than the traditional method. Currently, the available data on the clinical effectiveness of the two performed surgeries, TLIF with CBT screws (CBT-TLIF) and TLIF with traditional pedicle screws (PS-TLIF), are insufficient. This is the first randomised study to compare CBT-TLIF against traditional PS fixation and will provide recommendations for treating patients with lumbar degenerative disc disorders.Methods and analysisA blinded randomised controlled trial (blinding for the patient and statistician, rather than for the clinician and researcher) will be conducted. A total of 254 participants with lumbar disc degenerative disease who are candidates for TLIF surgery will be randomly allocated to either the CBT-TLIF group or the PS-TLIF group at a ratio of 1:1. The primary clinical outcome measures are the incidence of adjacent cranial facet joint violation, fusion rate and the screw loosening rate. Secondary clinical outcome measures are Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of back pain, VAS of leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, operative time, intraoperative blood loss and complications. These parameters will be evaluated on day 3, and then at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (batch: 2017-03). The results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and an international spine-related meeting after completion of the study.Trial registration numberNCT03105167; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC5665262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe incidence of lumbar disc degeneration disease has increased in recent years. Lumbar interbody fusion using two unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar facet screw fixation has advantages of minimal invasiveness and lower costs compared with the traditional methods. Moreover, a method guided by a three-dimensional (3D) navigation template may help us improve the surgical accuracy and the success rate. This is the first randomised study using a 3D navigation template to guide a unilateral lumbar pedicle screw with contralateral translaminar facet screw fixation.Methods and analysisPatients who meet the criteria of the surgery will be randomly divided into experimental groups and control groups by a computer-generated randomisation schedule. We will preoperatively design an individual 3D navigation template using CATIA software and MeditoolCreate. The following primary outcomes will be collected: screw angles compared with the optimal screw trajectories in 3D digital images, length of the wound incision, operative time, intraoperative blood loss and complications. The following secondary outcomes will be collected: visual analogue scale (VAS) for back pain, VAS for leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index. These parameters will be evaluated on day 1 and then 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been reviewed and approved by the institutional ethics review board of the Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University. The results will be presented at scientific communities and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberChiCTR-IDR-17010466.
| S-EPMC5642762 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9589236 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis is a meta-analysis to compare the clinical results between unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation in lumbar interbody fusion.MethodsWe included published studies with no language and year restrictions. The criteria which Koes et al. designed in 1995 were used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies. All data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.1. The primary outcomes included fusion rate and screw complications, and the secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, and hospital time.ResultsA total of five prospective studies with 407 patients were included in the current meta-analysis, and four of them were randomized controlled trials. There was no significant difference between unilateral PS fixation and bilateral PS fixation group in fusion rate and screw complications (fusion rate: OR 0.54, Z = 1.33, P = 0.18, I (2) = 0 %; screw complications: OR 1.45, Z = 0.71, P = 0.48; I (2) = 44 %). In the secondary outcomes, the operative time (Z = 3.35, P = 0.0008; I (2) = 95 %) and blood loss (Z = 4.35, P < 0.0001; I (2) = 98 %) was significantly higher in bilateral PS fixation group than in unilateral PS fixation group. Besides, no significant difference was found in hospital time (Z = 1.19, P = 0.24; I (2) = 99 %).ConclusionsIn our meta-analysis, we found that unilateral PS fixation in lumbar fusion was as effective as bilateral PS fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases without major instability, no significant difference was found in hospital time, fusion rate and screw complications. In terms of operative time and blood loss, unilateral PS fixation even produced better results.
| S-EPMC3906456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and Objective: Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF) has been investigated and shown excellent short- and long-term outcomes. In this paper, we describe a new MIS-TLIF technique and pedicle screw insertion using a marker screw as a guidance method. Moreover, we report perioperative, postoperative, and patient-related outcomes. In addition, this paper outlines major differences in radiation exposure, cost effectiveness and accuracy of Marker Screw Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion (MS-MIS TLIF) compared to other techniques. We report our technique to share our knowledge and experience with the aim of achieving a better MIS-TLIF that would help both surgeons and patients. Materials and Methods: A prospective case series was conducted between October 2018 and February 2021. Patients undergoing MS-MIS TLIF with marker screws were consecutively included. The surgery did not exceed two levels. The patients' medical records were reviewed, and the included patients were asked to complete two outcome-questionnaires before surgery and at the six-month visit. The surgical technique is described in this paper. Results: A total of 37 patients were recruited. The mean age was 57.35 ± 12.8 years, and more than half of the patients were females. The most common indications for surgery were degenerative disc disease and spondylolisthesis, with the typical level at L4-5. The operative time was 3.02 ± 0.83 h, while the estimated blood loss was 127.7 ± 71.1 mL. The average time for ambulation and hospitalization was 1 ± 1.1 and 2.84 ± 1.4 days, respectively. The patients described significant improvement in both questionnaires. No screw-related complications or screw revisions were needed up to two years of follow-up. Conclusions: The use of marker screws for pedicle screw placement through a minimally invasive fashion is shown to be a promising technique that can overcome many drawbacks, including cost, operative time, and radiation exposure. Performing MS-MIS TLIF can achieve a 360- degree fusion compared to percutaneous MIS-TLIF.
| S-EPMC10056701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective case series. OBJECTIVE:To describe a modified technique for mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) that improves visualization for decompression, fusion, and freehand pedicle screw insertion. Accuracy of freehand pedicle screw placement with this technique was assessed. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:Mini-open TLIF is a minimally invasive technique that allows limited visualization of the bone and neural anatomy via an expandable tubular retractor inserted through the Wiltse plane. No significant modification that of this technique has been described in detail. METHODS:In this study, 92 consecutive patients underwent one-level modified mini-open TLIF (MOTLIF). MOTLIF modifications consisted of (i) transmuscular dissection through the multifidus muscle rather than intermuscular dissection in the Wiltse plane; (ii) microsurgical detachment of multifidus from the facet rather than muscle dilation; (iii) en bloc total facetectomy (unilateral or bilateral, as needed for decompression); (iv) facet autograft used for interbody fusion; and (v) solid pedicle screws placed bilaterally by a freehand technique under direct vision. RESULTS:The mean age was 53 years. Mean follow-up was 35 months (minimum 2 yrs). By 6 months, mean Visual Analog Scale for back and leg pain had improved from 51 to 19 and from 58 to 17, respectively, and mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improved from 53 to 16. These improvements persisted at 2 years. Solid fusion, defined by computed tomography at 1 year, was achieved in 88.1%, whereas satisfactory fusion was achieved in 95.2% of patients. Pedicle screws were accurately placed in 335 of 336 imaged pedicles (pedicle breach grades: 91.1% grade 1; 8.6% grade 2; and 0.3% grade 3). Mean fluoroscopy time was 29.3?seconds. CONCLUSION:MOTLIF is a safe and effective minimally invasive technique with a high fusion rate. It allows accurate pedicle screw placement by a freehand technique. By eliminating bi-planar fluoroscopy, it helps reduce radiation exposure. This is the largest published report of mini-open TLIF to date. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:4.
| S-EPMC5001135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe previous studies agree that minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has better function outcomes, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, when compared to open-TLIF. However, there are no significance differences on operative time, complication, and reoperation rate between the two procedures. This could be from less relative literatures and lower grade evidence. The further meta-analysis is needed with more and higher grade evidences to compare the above two TLIF procedures.MethodsProspective and retrospective studies that compared open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF were identified by searching the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP database (the literature search comprised Medical Subject Heading terms and key words or Emtree term). The retrieval time ranged from the date when the database was founded to January 2015. Pooled risk ratios (RR s) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the clinical outcomes and perioperative data.ResultsTwenty-four studies (n = 1967 patients) were included in this review (n = 951, open-TLIF, n = 1016, MIS-TLIF). MIS-TLIF was associated with a significant decrease in the visual analog score (VAS)-back pain score (WMD = -0.44; P = 0.001), Oswestry Disabilities Index (WMD = -1.57; P = 0.005), early ambulation (WMD = -1.77; P = 0.0001), less blood loss (WMD = -265.59; P < 0.00001), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.89; P < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in the fusion rate (RR = 0.99; P = 0.34), VAS-leg pain (WMD = -0.10; P = 0.26), complication rate (RR = 0.84; P = 0.35), operation time (WMD = -5.23; P = 0.82), or reoperation rate (RR = 0.73; P = 0.32).ConclusionsMIS-TLIF resulted in a similar fusion rate with better functional outcome, less blood loss, shorter ambulation, and hospital stay; furthermore, it did not increase the complication or reoperation rate based on the existing evidence.
| S-EPMC4989430 | biostudies-literature