Cargando…

Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Unilateral Pedicle and Contralateral Facet Screws for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis

Study Design Retrospective clinical study. Objectives Recent biomechanical studies have shown no differences in stiffness or range of motion following minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) between unilateral pedicle and contralateral facet screw (UPFS) and bilateral...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Awad, Basem I., Lubelski, Daniel, Shin, John H., Carmody, Margaret A., Hoh, Daniel J., Mroz, Thomas E., Steinmetz, Michael P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3854596/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24436873
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1349399
_version_ 1782294834502959104
author Awad, Basem I.
Lubelski, Daniel
Shin, John H.
Carmody, Margaret A.
Hoh, Daniel J.
Mroz, Thomas E.
Steinmetz, Michael P.
author_facet Awad, Basem I.
Lubelski, Daniel
Shin, John H.
Carmody, Margaret A.
Hoh, Daniel J.
Mroz, Thomas E.
Steinmetz, Michael P.
author_sort Awad, Basem I.
collection PubMed
description Study Design Retrospective clinical study. Objectives Recent biomechanical studies have shown no differences in stiffness or range of motion following minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) between unilateral pedicle and contralateral facet screw (UPFS) and bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) constructs. No studies have compared these two constructs based upon clinical outcomes. Methods Twenty-six consecutive patients who had single-level MIS TLIF were retrospectively reviewed. Outcome measures collected for patients with BPS were compared with those with UPFS. Results No associations were found between construct and length of stay (p = 0.5), operative time (p = 0.2), or Odom's criteria (p = 0.7); 79% of patients in the UPFS group as compared with 71.5% in the BPS group had good or excellent outcomes. Mean follow-up was 17.7 months for the UPFS group and 20.2 months for the BPS group. There was one complication in each group, including a seroma in the BPS group and a revision operation in the UPFS group. Implant costs for the BPS group were 35% greater than the UPFS group. Conclusions The present study is the first to demonstrate that patients undergoing MIS TLIF with BPS as compared with UPFS for single-level degenerative lumbar disease had similar clinical outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3854596
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38545962014-12-01 Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Unilateral Pedicle and Contralateral Facet Screws for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis Awad, Basem I. Lubelski, Daniel Shin, John H. Carmody, Margaret A. Hoh, Daniel J. Mroz, Thomas E. Steinmetz, Michael P. Global Spine J Article Study Design Retrospective clinical study. Objectives Recent biomechanical studies have shown no differences in stiffness or range of motion following minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) between unilateral pedicle and contralateral facet screw (UPFS) and bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) constructs. No studies have compared these two constructs based upon clinical outcomes. Methods Twenty-six consecutive patients who had single-level MIS TLIF were retrospectively reviewed. Outcome measures collected for patients with BPS were compared with those with UPFS. Results No associations were found between construct and length of stay (p = 0.5), operative time (p = 0.2), or Odom's criteria (p = 0.7); 79% of patients in the UPFS group as compared with 71.5% in the BPS group had good or excellent outcomes. Mean follow-up was 17.7 months for the UPFS group and 20.2 months for the BPS group. There was one complication in each group, including a seroma in the BPS group and a revision operation in the UPFS group. Implant costs for the BPS group were 35% greater than the UPFS group. Conclusions The present study is the first to demonstrate that patients undergoing MIS TLIF with BPS as compared with UPFS for single-level degenerative lumbar disease had similar clinical outcomes. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2013-07-02 2013-12 /pmc/articles/PMC3854596/ /pubmed/24436873 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1349399 Text en © Thieme Medical Publishers
spellingShingle Article
Awad, Basem I.
Lubelski, Daniel
Shin, John H.
Carmody, Margaret A.
Hoh, Daniel J.
Mroz, Thomas E.
Steinmetz, Michael P.
Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Unilateral Pedicle and Contralateral Facet Screws for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis
title Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Unilateral Pedicle and Contralateral Facet Screws for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis
title_full Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Unilateral Pedicle and Contralateral Facet Screws for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis
title_fullStr Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Unilateral Pedicle and Contralateral Facet Screws for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Unilateral Pedicle and Contralateral Facet Screws for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis
title_short Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Unilateral Pedicle and Contralateral Facet Screws for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis
title_sort bilateral pedicle screw fixation versus unilateral pedicle and contralateral facet screws for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical outcomes and cost analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3854596/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24436873
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1349399
work_keys_str_mv AT awadbasemi bilateralpediclescrewfixationversusunilateralpedicleandcontralateralfacetscrewsforminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionclinicaloutcomesandcostanalysis
AT lubelskidaniel bilateralpediclescrewfixationversusunilateralpedicleandcontralateralfacetscrewsforminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionclinicaloutcomesandcostanalysis
AT shinjohnh bilateralpediclescrewfixationversusunilateralpedicleandcontralateralfacetscrewsforminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionclinicaloutcomesandcostanalysis
AT carmodymargareta bilateralpediclescrewfixationversusunilateralpedicleandcontralateralfacetscrewsforminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionclinicaloutcomesandcostanalysis
AT hohdanielj bilateralpediclescrewfixationversusunilateralpedicleandcontralateralfacetscrewsforminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionclinicaloutcomesandcostanalysis
AT mrozthomase bilateralpediclescrewfixationversusunilateralpedicleandcontralateralfacetscrewsforminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionclinicaloutcomesandcostanalysis
AT steinmetzmichaelp bilateralpediclescrewfixationversusunilateralpedicleandcontralateralfacetscrewsforminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionclinicaloutcomesandcostanalysis