Literature DB >> 34551929

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

Vigneshwara Badikillaya1, Keyur K Akbari1, Pramod Sudarshan2, Hardik Suthar3, Muralidharan Venkatesan1, Sajan K Hegde1.   

Abstract

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. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
Copyright © 2021 ISASS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  interbody fusion; lumbar fusion; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; unilateral pedicle screw fixation

Year:  2021        PMID: 34551929      PMCID: PMC8651204          DOI: 10.14444/8121

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  50 in total

1.  Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion.

Authors:  K S Suk; H M Lee; N H Kim; J W Ha
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Un Yong Choi; Jeong Yoon Park; Kyung Hyun Kim; Sung Uk Kuh; Dong Kyu Chin; Keun Su Kim; Yong Eun Cho
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.047

3.  Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases.

Authors:  Huaming Xue; Yihui Tu; Minwei Cai
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2012-03-03       Impact factor: 4.166

4.  Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Kong Hwee Lee; Wai Mun Yue; William Yeo; Henry Soeharno; Seang Beng Tan
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Five-year outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a matched-pair comparison study.

Authors:  Chusheng Seng; Mashfiqul A Siddiqui; Kenneth P L Wong; Karen Zhang; William Yeo; Seang Beng Tan; Wai-Mun Yue
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Basil M Harris; Alan S Hilibrand; Paul E Savas; Anthony Pellegrino; Alexander R Vaccaro; Sorin Siegler; Todd J Albert
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Cage migration after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and factors related to it.

Authors:  Feng-dong Zhao; Wei Yang; Zhi Shan; Jian Wang; Hai-xiao Chen; Zheng-hua Hong; Yu Qian; Deng-wei He; Shun-wu Fan
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 2.071

8.  Incidence, prevalence, and analysis of risk factors for surgical site infection following adult spinal surgery.

Authors:  Albert F Pull ter Gunne; David B Cohen
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  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.

Authors:  Sanjay S Dhall; Michael Y Wang; Praveen V Mummaneni
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2008-12

10.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients.

Authors:  Sean A Salehi; Rabih Tawk; Aruna Ganju; Frank LaMarca; John C Liu; Stephen L Ondra
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.654

View more
  1 in total

1.  MRI Assessment of the Early Disc Degeneration Two Levels above Fused Lumbar Spine Segment: A Comparison after Unilateral and Bilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Procedure.

Authors:  Milka Kljaic Dujic; Gregor Recnik; Milko Milcic; Eva Bosnjak; Mitja Rupreht
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 4.964

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.