Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Eur Spine J. 2014 May;23(5):974-84. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3221-2. Epub 2014 Feb 19.

Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis.

Author information

1
Department of Spinal Surgery, East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, 150# Jimo RD, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, 200120, China.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Traditionally, lumbar spinal surgery is performed with bilateral pedicle screw fixation to provide stability as the fusion heals. However, many studies have reported that unilateral pedicle screw fixation is as effective as bilateral constructs. To compare the clinical outcomes, complications, and surgical trauma between the two techniques for treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases, we conducted a meta-analysis.

METHODS:

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for relevant controlled studies up to August 2013 that compared unilateral with bilateral fixation for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. We independently performed title/abstract screening and full-text screening. A random effects model was used for heterogeneous data; otherwise, a fixed effect model was used, pooling data using mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes.

RESULTS:

A total of 12 articles (865 participants) were eligible. Overall, there were significant differences between the two groups for blood loss (MD = -171.73, 95 % CI = -281.70 to -61.76; p = 0.002), operation time (MD = -66.02, 95 % CI = -115.52 to -16.51; p = 0.009), and fusion rate (OR = 0.50, 95 % CI = 0.26-0.96; p = 0.004). However, there were no significant differences in hospital stay (MD = -4.44, 95 % CI = -13.37 to 4.50), ODI (MD = -0.09, 95 % CI = -0.59 to 0.42; p = 0.74), JOA (MD = 0.18, 95 % CI = -0.77 to 1.14; p = 0.71), VAS (MD = -0.04, 95 % CI = -0.16 to 0.08; p = 0.49), SF-36 (PF: MD = -1.11, 95 % CI = -4.38 to 2.17, p = 0.51; GH: MD = 1.22, 95 % CI = -2.17 to 4.60, p = 0.48; MH: MD = -0.22, 95 % CI = -3.83 to 3.38, p = 0.90) and complications (OR = 1.15, 95 % CI = 0.72-1.85; p = 0.56).

CONCLUSIONS:

This meta-analysis shows that there was significantly less blood loss in unilateral group and less operating time; however, the fusion rate was significantly higher in the bilateral group. The outcomes of hospital stay, ODI, JOA, VAS, SF-36 score, and complications are similar in the two groups.

PMID:
24549387
DOI:
10.1007/s00586-014-3221-2
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Springer
    Loading ...
    Support Center