Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in two-level degenerative lumbar diseases

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Guangfei Gu ; Hailong Zhang ; Guoxin Fan ; Shisheng He…
• 关键词：Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion ; Minimally invasive ; Unilateral ; Bilateral ; Radiographic analysis
• 刊名：European Spine Journal
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：August 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：24
• 期：8
• 页码：1640-1648
• 全文大小：1,209 KB
• 参考文献：1.Goel VK, Lim TH, Gwon J, Chen JY et al (1991) Effects of rigidity of an internal fixation device. A comprehensive biomechanical investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16(3 Suppl):S155–S161View Article
  2.McAfee PC, Farey ID, Sutterlin CE, Gurr KR, Warden KE, Cunningham BW (1991) The effect of spinal implant rigidity on vertebral bone density. A canine model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 16(6 Suppl):S190–S197View Article
  3.McAfee PC, Farey ID, Sutterlin CE, Gurr KR, Warden KE, Cunningham BW (1989) 1989 Volvo award in basic science. Device-related osteoporosis with spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14(9):919-26View Article
  4.Nagata H, Schendel MJ, Transfeldt EE, Lewis JL (1993) The effects of immobilization of long segments of the spine on the adjacent and distal facet force and lumbosacral motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18(16):2471-479View Article
  5.Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE (2004) Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(17):1938-944View Article
  6.Shono Y, Kaneda K, Abumi K, McAfee PC, Cunningham BW (1998) Stability of posterior spinal instrumentation and its effects on adjacent motion segments in the lumbosacral spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(14):1550-558View Article
  7.Schizas C, Tzinieris N, Tsiridis E, Kosmopoulos V (2009) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: evaluating initial experience. Int Orthop 33(6):1683-688PubMed Central PubMed View Article
  8.Deutsch H, Musacchio MJ Jr (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Neurosurg Focus 20(3):E10PubMed View Article
  9.Kasai Y, Inaba T, Kato T, Matsumura Y, Akeda K, Uchida A (2010) Biomechanical study of the lumbar spine using a unilateral pedicle screw fixation system. J Clin Neurosci 17(3):364-67PubMed View Article
  10.Wang J, Zhou Y (2014) Perioperative complications related to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion: evaluation of 204 operations on lumbar instability at single center. Spine J 14(9):2078-084PubMed View Article
  11.Gu G, Zhang H, He S, Jia J, Fu Q, Zhou X (2013) Preoperative localization methods for minimally invasive surgery in lumbar spine: comparisons between a novel method and conventional methods. J Spinal Disord Tech 26(7):E277–E280PubMed View Article
  12.Quint DJ, Tuite GF, Stern JD, Doran SE et al (1997) Computer-assisted measurement of lumbar spine radiographs. Acad Radiol 4(11):742-52PubMed View Article
  13.Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB (2012) Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21(11):2265-270PubMed Central PubMed View Article
  14.Sethi A, Lee S, Vaidya R (2009) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral pedicle screws and a translaminar screw. Eur Spine J 18(3):430-34PubMed Central PubMed View Article
  15.Foley KT, Lefkowitz MA (2002) Advances in minimally invasive spine surgery. Clin Neurosurg 49:499-17PubMed
  16.Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB (2009) Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(13):1385-389View Article
  17.Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2005) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(Suppl):S1–S6PubMed View Article
  18.Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Roeca CM, Nelson EL, Mason A (2010) Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Surg Neurol Int 1:12PubMed Central PubMed View Article
  19.Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J (2010) Comparison of one-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Eur Spine J 19(10):1780-784PubMed Central PubMed View Article
  20.Schleicher P, Beth P, Ottenbacher A, Pflugmacher R et al (2008) Biomechanical evaluation of different asymmetrical posterior stabilization methods for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 9(4):363-71PubMed View Article
  21.Slucky AV, Brodke DS, Bachus KN, Droge JA, Braun JT (2006) Less invasive posterior fixation method following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Spine J 6(1):78-5PubMed View Article
  22.Yucesoy K, Yuksel KZ, Baek S, Sonntag VK, Crawford NR (2008) Biomechanics of unilateral compared with bilateral lumbar pedicle screw fixation for stabilization of unilateral vertebral disease. J Neurosurg Spine 8(1):44-1PubMed View Article
  23.Fernandez-Fairen M, Sala P, Ramirez H, Gil J (2007) A prospective randomized study of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(4):395-0
• 作者单位：Guangfei Gu (1)
  Hailong Zhang (1)
  Guoxin Fan (1)
  Shisheng He (1)
  Xiaotong Meng (1)
  Xin Gu (1)
  Ning Yan (1)
  Xiaofei Guan (1)
  
  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Yanchang Road 301, 200072, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
  
• 刊物类别：Medicine
• 刊物主题：Medicine & Public Health
  Surgical Orthopedics
  Neurosurgery
  
• 出版者：Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
• ISSN：1432-0932

文摘

Purpose To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented in two-level degenerative lumbar diseases after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF). Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study of 74 patients, who underwent unilateral or bilateral instrumented in two-level MITLIF for degenerative lumbar diseases from May 2010 to June 2012. There were 35 patients in group A undergoing unilateral pedicle screw fixation and 39 patients in group B undergoing bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Demographic data and clinical characteristics were compared between the two groups before surgery. Perioperative data, clinical and radiological outcomes of the two groups were also compared. Results The mean follow-up period was 32.1?±?7.5?months for group A and 31.7?±?8.0?months for group B (p?>?0.05). Group A required a significantly shorter operating time, lower implant costs and less intraoperative blood loss and X-ray exposure time than group B (p?<?0.01). However, no statistical differences were identified in the amount of transfusion and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups (p?>?0.05). Clinical outcomes assessed by visual analog scores for back and leg pain (VAS-BP and VAS-LP, respectively) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improved significantly in both groups after surgery, and no significant differences existed between the two groups at each postoperative follow-up (p?>?0.05). There were significant differences within groups for Cobb angles of the whole lumbar [Cobb (a)] and the whole lumbar lordosis at each time point before and after surgery (p?<?0.05). No significant differences existed between groups in relation to Cobb (a), Cobb angle of the fused segments, lumbar lordosis and the segmental lordosis at any time point before and after surgery (p?>?0.05). There were no significant differences in fusion rate and total complication rate between the two groups (p?>?0.05). Conclusions Unilateral instrumentation after two-level MITLIF provided similar clinical and radiological outcomes to bilateral fixation in two-level degenerative lumbar diseases. Compared with bilateral fixation, unilateral fixation shortens operation time, reduces intra-operative blood loss and X-ray exposure time, and saves medical expenses with similar postoperative hospital stay and complication rate.