Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation with Bone Graft vs. Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation with Bone Graft or Cage: A Comparative Study

Background The aim of this study was to explore the clinical efficacy of unilateral pedicle screw fixation with bone graft (UPSFB) in treating single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD), as compared to bilateral pedicle screw fixation with bone graft (BPSFB) or with cage (BPSFC). Material/Methods Medical records were retrospectively collected between 01/2010 and 02/2015 in Longyao County Hospital. According to surgical methods used, all patients were divided into 3 groups: UPSFB group, BPSFB group, and BPSFC group. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by blood loss, blood transfusion, duration of operation, hospital stay, postoperative complications, interbody fusion rate, reoperation rate, medical expenses, patient satisfaction survey, and JOA score. Results Ninety-five patients were included and underwent 2.5-year follow-up, with 7 patients lost to regular follow-up. As compared to the BPSFB group and BPSFC group, the UPSFB group had less blood loss and less blood transfusion, as well as shorter hospital stay (p<0.05). Medical expenses were far lower in the UPSFB group (p<0.001). There were no significant differences among the 3 groups in postoperative complications, interbody fusion rate, reoperation rate, JOA score, and patient satisfaction (all p>0.05). Conclusions As compared to BPSFB and BPSFC, UPSFB has the same reliability and effectiveness in treating single-segment LDD with unilateral radicular symptoms in a single lower extremity, with the additional advantage being less expensive.

[1]  Chaoliang Lv,et al.  Unilateral versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation for Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: A Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials , 2015, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[2]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Isolated L4-L5 fusions using the variable screw placement system: unilateral versus bilateral. , 1992, Journal of spinal disorders.

[3]  Hui-lin Yang,et al.  Comparison of lumbar interbody fusion performed with unilateral or bilateral pedicle screw. , 2013, Orthopedics.

[4]  Xiaolong Shen,et al.  Radiographic Analysis of One-level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF) With Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases , 2013, Clinical spine surgery.

[5]  H. Refior,et al.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with cages and local bone graft in the treatment of spinal stenosis. , 2006, Acta orthopaedica Belgica.

[6]  Z. Kai,et al.  Unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disorders: a prospective randomised study , 2013, International Orthopaedics.

[7]  Y. Ohkoshi,et al.  Clinical Results of Single-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the Brantigan I/F Carbon Cage Filled With a Mixture of Local Morselized Bone and Bioactive Ceramic Granules , 2002, Spine.

[8]  Jean-Pierre Mobasser,et al.  Unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. , 2006, Neurosurgical focus.

[9]  Javier Gil,et al.  A Prospective Randomized Study of Unilateral Versus Bilateral Instrumented Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis , 2007, Spine.

[10]  K. Dai,et al.  Bilateral decompression using a unilateral pedicle construct for lumbar stenosis , 2014, International Orthopaedics.

[11]  U. Mansmann,et al.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using rhBMP-2 , 2008, European Spine Journal.

[12]  Ho-Joong Kim,et al.  Biomechanical Analysis of Fusion Segment Rigidity Upon Stress at Both the Fusion and Adjacent Segments: A Comparison between Unilateral and Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation , 2014, Yonsei medical journal.

[13]  K. Suk,et al.  Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion. , 2000, Spine.

[14]  B. Lin,et al.  Minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. , 2013, Orthopedics.

[15]  S. Siegler,et al.  Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: The Effect of Various Instrumentation Techniques on the Flexibility of the Lumbar Spine , 2004, Spine.

[16]  W. Ding,et al.  Prevalence and risk factors of deep vein thrombosis in patients after spine surgery: a retrospective case-cohort study , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[17]  F. Zhang,et al.  Posterior interbody fusion using a diagonal cage with unilateral transpedicular screw fixation for lumbar stenosis , 2011, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[18]  M. Morooka,et al.  Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Local Facet Joint Autograft and Pedicle Screw Fixation , 2004, Spine.

[19]  Alf Nachemson,et al.  Spinal-fusion surgery - the case for restraint. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  Kent N Bachus,et al.  Less invasive posterior fixation method following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis. , 2006, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[21]  Hua-ming Xue,et al.  Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. , 2012, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[22]  Li-Jing Yang,et al.  Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with cage fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis , 2015, European Spine Journal.