Cargando…

Minimally invasive unilateral versus bilateral technique in performing single-segment pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE: The minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedure with percutaneous pedicle screws was adopted in clinical practice, but the choice between a unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) or bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation after lumbar fusion remains controversial. The purpose...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Chen, Cao, Xuecheng, Zou, Lin, Hao, Guangliang, Zhou, Zhenyu, Zhang, Guichun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26179281
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0253-1
_version_ 1782381433982025728
author Chen, Chen
Cao, Xuecheng
Zou, Lin
Hao, Guangliang
Zhou, Zhenyu
Zhang, Guichun
author_facet Chen, Chen
Cao, Xuecheng
Zou, Lin
Hao, Guangliang
Zhou, Zhenyu
Zhang, Guichun
author_sort Chen, Chen
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedure with percutaneous pedicle screws was adopted in clinical practice, but the choice between a unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) or bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation after lumbar fusion remains controversial. The purpose of the present retrospective study was to compare the clinical outcomes and radiological results of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixations. METHODS: The retrospective study recruited seventy-eight patients with a single-level pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion at L4–L5 or L5–S1 from January 2010 to January 2013. The patients were treated with MIS TLIF with BPS fixation, and since May 2012, all patients were treated with UPS fixation. The perioperative outcomes including operative time, blood loss, hospital-stay length, and complication rates were accessed. Radiological outcomes regarding fusion were determined with the Bridwell grading system. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) during the mean follow-up of 2 years. RESULTS: According to perioperative assessments, the operative time was significantly shorter for group UPS (84.7 ± 6.4 min) than for group BPS (103.6 ± 10.6 min; p < 0.0001), and similar results were found with regard to the mean blood loss (UPS, 96.3 ± 17.5; BPS, 137.4 ± 32.9, p < 0.0001). With regard to the hospital-stay period, though the UPS group seems shorter, there is no statistical significance (UPS, 10.0 ± 2.1; BPS, 10.4 ± 2.4, p = 0.428). There were four in the BPS group and six in the UPS group defined as unfused at 6 months pest-operative, but at 12 months post-surgery, all patients achieved solid fusion. Regarding clinical outcomes, the VAS and ODI scores were significantly lower in the UPS group than the BPS group at 7 days post-surgery, but there was no difference at 1 month post-surgery and during the later follow-up. CONCLUSION: There was no difference between the UPS and BPS flexion techniques about the clinical outcomes at 24 months post-surgery. However, because the UPS involves a shorter surgical time, less blood loss, faster pain relief, and faster functional recovery, UPS might be more suitable in performing single-segment pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4504127
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45041272015-07-17 Minimally invasive unilateral versus bilateral technique in performing single-segment pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion Chen, Chen Cao, Xuecheng Zou, Lin Hao, Guangliang Zhou, Zhenyu Zhang, Guichun J Orthop Surg Res Research Article PURPOSE: The minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedure with percutaneous pedicle screws was adopted in clinical practice, but the choice between a unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) or bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation after lumbar fusion remains controversial. The purpose of the present retrospective study was to compare the clinical outcomes and radiological results of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixations. METHODS: The retrospective study recruited seventy-eight patients with a single-level pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion at L4–L5 or L5–S1 from January 2010 to January 2013. The patients were treated with MIS TLIF with BPS fixation, and since May 2012, all patients were treated with UPS fixation. The perioperative outcomes including operative time, blood loss, hospital-stay length, and complication rates were accessed. Radiological outcomes regarding fusion were determined with the Bridwell grading system. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) during the mean follow-up of 2 years. RESULTS: According to perioperative assessments, the operative time was significantly shorter for group UPS (84.7 ± 6.4 min) than for group BPS (103.6 ± 10.6 min; p < 0.0001), and similar results were found with regard to the mean blood loss (UPS, 96.3 ± 17.5; BPS, 137.4 ± 32.9, p < 0.0001). With regard to the hospital-stay period, though the UPS group seems shorter, there is no statistical significance (UPS, 10.0 ± 2.1; BPS, 10.4 ± 2.4, p = 0.428). There were four in the BPS group and six in the UPS group defined as unfused at 6 months pest-operative, but at 12 months post-surgery, all patients achieved solid fusion. Regarding clinical outcomes, the VAS and ODI scores were significantly lower in the UPS group than the BPS group at 7 days post-surgery, but there was no difference at 1 month post-surgery and during the later follow-up. CONCLUSION: There was no difference between the UPS and BPS flexion techniques about the clinical outcomes at 24 months post-surgery. However, because the UPS involves a shorter surgical time, less blood loss, faster pain relief, and faster functional recovery, UPS might be more suitable in performing single-segment pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion. BioMed Central 2015-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4504127/ /pubmed/26179281 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0253-1 Text en © Chen et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chen, Chen
Cao, Xuecheng
Zou, Lin
Hao, Guangliang
Zhou, Zhenyu
Zhang, Guichun
Minimally invasive unilateral versus bilateral technique in performing single-segment pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion
title Minimally invasive unilateral versus bilateral technique in performing single-segment pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion
title_full Minimally invasive unilateral versus bilateral technique in performing single-segment pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion
title_fullStr Minimally invasive unilateral versus bilateral technique in performing single-segment pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion
title_full_unstemmed Minimally invasive unilateral versus bilateral technique in performing single-segment pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion
title_short Minimally invasive unilateral versus bilateral technique in performing single-segment pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion
title_sort minimally invasive unilateral versus bilateral technique in performing single-segment pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26179281
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0253-1
work_keys_str_mv AT chenchen minimallyinvasiveunilateralversusbilateraltechniqueinperformingsinglesegmentpediclescrewfixationandlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT caoxuecheng minimallyinvasiveunilateralversusbilateraltechniqueinperformingsinglesegmentpediclescrewfixationandlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT zoulin minimallyinvasiveunilateralversusbilateraltechniqueinperformingsinglesegmentpediclescrewfixationandlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT haoguangliang minimallyinvasiveunilateralversusbilateraltechniqueinperformingsinglesegmentpediclescrewfixationandlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT zhouzhenyu minimallyinvasiveunilateralversusbilateraltechniqueinperformingsinglesegmentpediclescrewfixationandlumbarinterbodyfusion
AT zhangguichun minimallyinvasiveunilateralversusbilateraltechniqueinperformingsinglesegmentpediclescrewfixationandlumbarinterbodyfusion