腰椎融合联合Coflex动态固定手术治疗腰椎退行性疾病

目的：总结腰椎后路椎间融合术联合Coflex动态固定术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法：对2008年3月至2010年3月应用腰椎后路椎间融合术联合Coflex动态固定治疗的18例腰椎退行性疾病患者（均为双节段）的临床资料进行回顾性总结分析。男11例,女7例;年龄41～62岁,平均50.2岁。分析内容包括：ODI指数、腰痛和下肢痛的VAS评分,并通过腰椎动力位X线观察活动度（ROM）、椎间隙高度（DHI）的变化情况。结果：所有患者获得随访,时间6～30个月,平均12个月。在末次随访时,腰痛VAS评分、下肢痛VAS评分及ODI指数均较术前明显改善（P〈0.001）。腰痛VAS评分术前（7.20±0.90）分,末次随访（1.50±0.90）分;下肢痛VAS评分术前（5.20±0.90）分,末次随访（1.10±0.80）分。ODI指数术前（52.50±5.90）%,末次随访（15.90±5.80）%。Coflex置入节段的DHI术前0.23±0.05,术后0.35±0.06,末次随访0.33±0.04,椎间隙高度未见明显丢失。Coflex置入节段的ROM术前（8.90±1.80）°,术后降至（8.30±1.90）°,末次随访（8.10±1.80）°,与术前差异无统计学意义（P=0.19）,Coflex置入节段活动度未见明显改变。L2-S1ROM术前为（20.20±5.60）°,术后（14.40±5.70）°,末次随访（15.50±5.20）°,与术前比较有统计学差异（P=0.01）。结论：腰椎后路椎间融合术联合Coflex动态固定治疗双节段腰椎退变性疾病能取得满意的中短期临床疗效,但没有充分证据证明这项技术优于多节段融合术。手术适应证的合理选择十分重要。     

Coflex与传统手术方法治疗腰椎退行性疾病疗效的Meta分析

[目的]系统评价Coflex与传统融合固定两种手术方法治疗腰椎退行性病变的有效性和安全性.[方法]计算机检索数据库,手工检索骨科相关杂志,纳入关于Coflex与传统治疗腰椎退行性病变的研究并进行Meta分析.[结果]纳入12篇研究共684病例,Meta分析结果显示:Coflex与传统手术方法相比较,前者在手术时间和住院时间上短于后者,失血量少于后者,手术节段的ROM大于后者,差异具有统计学意义.后背VAS和JOA差异无统计学意义.[结论]在达到相同治疗效果的情况下,Coflex可以明显减少手术时间、术中出血量和住院时间,而且可以保持手术节段腰椎存在一定活动度,避免了邻近节段的退变,术后短期内随访显示了其生物力学上优越性.     

Coflex棘突间动态内固定治疗退行性腰椎间盘疾病的临床分析

目的：比较Coflex棘突间动态内固定和后路腰椎椎体间融合（PLIF）术治疗退行性椎间盘疾病的临床疗效。方法：对2007年1月至2010年1月收治的42例退行性椎间盘疾病患者进行回顾性分析,其中男19例,女23例;年龄33～62岁,平均（46.5±8.5）岁;病程6个月～7年,平均36个月。X线片或CT影像学显示42例患者均为L4,5单节段病变,其中单纯腰椎间盘突出症14例,合并腰椎管狭窄症28例。42例患者分别采用Coflex棘突间动态内固定（非融合组,21例）和PLIF术（融合组,21例）进行治疗。采用日本整形外科学会（JOA）评分和ODI指数对临床疗效进行评价,通过X线片测量腰椎各间隙活动度（ROM）,并比较两组的手术时间、出血量、术后住院时间。结果：两组患者均获得随访,时间至少10个月,非融合组10个月随访时JOA评分由术前13.8±3.7提高至24.6±4.6（P〈0.01）,ODI由术前65.8±7.5降低至25.6±5.1（P〈0.01）,L4,5节段活动度由术前4.2±0.7增加至5.3±0.6（P〈0.01）。而融合组10个月随访时JOA评分由术前13.2±3.2提高至24.5±4.3（P〈0.01）,ODI由65.5±8.2降低至26.5±6.1（P〈0.01）,L4,5节段活动度丧失。非融合组手术时间（71.2±12.8）min、出血量（56.6±25.5）ml、术后住院天数（4.4±1.3）d同融合组手术时间（121.0±23.2）min、出血量（135.8±19.8）ml及术后住院天数（12.6±2.4）d相比,均存在统计学差异（P〈0.01）。随访期间未发现与Coflex装置本身的并发症。结论：与后路腰椎椎体间融合术相比,Coflex棘突间动态内固定治疗退行性椎间盘疾病具有安全性高、创伤小、能够保留一定的腰椎活动度,在预防相邻节段椎间盘退变方面有一定作用。     

腰椎融合联合邻近节段K-Rod动态固定治疗腰椎退行性疾病

[目的]观察单节段腰椎后路椎间融合联合邻近节段K-Rod动态固定术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。[方法]回顾性分析2010年6月~2012年9月手术治疗的50例腰椎退行性疾病患者的临床资料,根据手术方式不同分为2组:单节段腰椎后路融合联合邻近节段K-Rod动态固定术组(A组)和单节段腰椎后路融合术组(B组),其中A组男14例,女11例;平均年龄(41.2±5.6)岁;B组男12例,女13例;平均年龄(47.4±5.2)岁。评估两组患者的神经改善情况、腰椎总活动度、近端邻近节段活动度及椎间隙高度情况。[结果]随访时间12~25个月,平均16.7个月。无不可逆性神经症状加重、内置物失败等并发症,临床疗效满意。在末次随访时,两组患者术后VAS及ODI评分均获得显著改善(P<0.05);A组动态固定节段的活动度术前(8.50±0.76)°,末次随访(3.45±0.49)°,存在统计学差异(P<0.05);A组动态固定节段的近端临近节段的活动度术前(7.62±0.50)°,末次随访(7.87±0.62)°,无统计学差异;B组近端临近节段活动度术前(8.20±1.13)°,末次随访(8.90±1.03)°,存在统计学差异(P<0.05);在末次随访时,两组腰椎总活动度及椎间隙高度均无统计学差异(p>0.05)。[结论]腰椎后路融合联合邻近节段K-Rod动态固定术治疗腰椎退行性疾病早期疗效明确,能够维持一定的脊柱生物学功能,并能避免相邻节段退变的进展,但远期疗效有待进一步观察。     

椎板减压经椎间孔椎体间融合治疗腰椎退行性疾病

目的探讨在椎板减压基础上经椎间孔椎体间融合术（transforam ina l lum bar in terbody fus ion,TL IF）用于腰椎退行性疾病的手术方法及疗效。方法采用椎板减压后行TL IF治疗腰椎退行性疾病。首先切除一侧下关节突、上关节突内上侧部分及椎板的下1/2部分,将神经根松解、减压,减压满意后完成TL IF。结果 38例均获得随访,时间1~12个月。无椎弓根钉失败及cage前、后侧移位及下陷。根据D en is疼痛分级、JOA评分法,术后平均改善率为96%。结论椎板减压TL IF扩大了手术适应证,使操作更加简单、安全,并发症减少。选择性用于治疗腰椎退行性疾病的短期疗效满意。     

双枚融合器行腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效

目的 探讨双枚融合器行腰椎椎间融合术(PLIF)治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效。方法 将60例腰椎退行性疾病患者根据PLIF术中置入融合器数量的不同分为双枚组(30例)和单枚组(30例)。比较两组疼痛VAS评分、ODI评分、椎间隙高度、腰椎局部前凸角、椎间融合及融合器沉降情况。结果 患者均获得随访,时间1～3年。末次随访时,两组腰痛及下肢痛VAS评分、ODI评分均较术前明显改善(P<0.05),但组间比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。椎间隙高度及腰椎局部前凸角：两组术后7 d、末次随访时较术前均明显改善(P<0.05);末次随访时,单枚组较术后7 d均有明显丢失(P<0.05),双枚组较术后7 d均无明显丢失(P>0.05),双枚组均显著优于单枚组(P<0.05)。末次随访时,椎间融合率单枚组低于双枚组(P<0.05),融合器沉降率单枚组高于双枚组(P<0.05)。结论 双枚融合器行PLIF治疗腰椎退行性疾病可降低术后融合器的沉降发生率,提高椎间融合率,良好维持术后椎间隙高度及腰椎局部前凸角。     

不同腰椎融合术式治疗腰椎退行性疾病的研究进展

腰椎退行性疾病是由椎间盘退变、椎间小关节增生紊乱、腰椎韧带松弛以及肌肉劳损等原因相互作用引起的以腰椎自然退化为特征的临床常见病.近年来随着生活水平的提高,老龄化进程的加剧,腰椎退行性疾病在临床上的发病率也越来越高,给众多老年人的生活质量和身体健康带来严重的影响.腰椎融合手术是治疗腰椎退行性疾病的重要手段,临床上腰椎融合...     

经Quadrant通道单侧椎弓根固定椎体间融合治疗腰椎退行性疾病

目的:比较经Quadrant通道单侧椎弓根螺钉固定(unilateralpediclescrewfixation,uni-PS)和传统后路双侧椎弓根固定(bilateralpediclescrewfixation,bi-PS)治疗腰椎退行性疾病的临床疗效。方法:2008年10月至2010年10月外科治疗腰椎退行性疾病102例,男67例,女35例;年龄34～69岁,平均51.5岁。所有患者术前有不同程度的下腰部疼痛、单侧下肢放射性疼痛或伴有下肢感觉异常;均行椎弓根固定、椎间融合术。根据固定方式的不同,将患者分成A、B两组:A组50例,采用Quadrant通道辅助下单侧椎弓根钉内固定联合单枚椎间融合器融合术治疗;B组52例,采用传统后路双侧椎弓根固定并单枚椎间融合器融合治疗。应用视觉模拟评分系统(VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数评分系统(ODI)评估两组患者术后疼痛及功能恢复情况,并对两组手术时间、出血量、融合率及并发症发生率等进行统计分析。结果:所有患者获得随访,平均随访时间为18.2个月(12～21个月)。A组手术时间为(87.6±25.5)min,术中出血量为(105.7±27.2)ml;腰痛、腿痛VAS评分分别由术前的7.2±1.4、7.9±1.1降至术后1个月的3.2±0.6、3.0±0.7;ODI评分从术前的42.2±11.8降至术后的15.6±2.3;融合率为96.0%(48/50),并发症发生率为4.00%(2/50)。B组手术时间为(160.3±20.5)min,术中出血为(220.6±25.5)ml,腰痛、腿痛VAS评分分别由术前的7.3±1.1、8.1±0.9降至术后1个月的3.3±0.4、3.2±0.3;ODI评分从术前的43.1±12.0降至术后的14.9±2.6;融合率为96.2%(50/52),并发症发生率为5.77%(3/52)。A组手术时间较B组缩短,术中失血量A组较B组减少,差异均有统计学意义;VAS评分、ODI评分、融合率、并发症发生率两组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:微创单侧椎弓根螺钉固定并单枚椎间融合器治疗腰椎退行性疾病与双侧椎弓根钉固定有同样临床效果,且具有手术时间短、出血量少、融合率高等优点,是一种安全可行的治疗方法。     

单侧MIS-TLIF与传统TLIF手术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效对比

目的探讨单侧微创TLIF(MIS-TLIF)与传统TLIF手术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的疗效差异。方法自2013-07-2016-02,采用TLIF手术治疗81例腰椎退行性疾病患者,其中34例予以单侧MIS-TLIF(观察组),另47例予以传统TLIF手术(对照组),对两组的相关指标进行对比。结果①手术情况:与对照组相比,观察组的手术时间显著缩短,术中出血量显著减少,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);②手术疗效:两组末次随访时的VAS评分和ODI指数均较术前显著降低(P0.05),组间对比无显著性差异(P0.05);③植骨融合情况:截至末次随访,观察组植骨融合率为91.2%,略低于对照组的97.9%,但组间并无统计学差异(P0.05)。结论:单侧MIS-TLIF手术治疗腰椎退行性疾病,其手术疗效与传统TLIF手术相近,但手术时间更短、术中出血量显著减少,是一种相对可靠的微创TLIF手术方案。     

腰椎后路椎体间融合术与后外侧融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的系统评价

[目的]系统评价腰椎后路椎体间融合术(posterior lumbar interbody fusion)对比后外侧融合术(posterolateral fusion)治疗腰椎退行性疾病的术后疗效.[方法]计算机检索PubMed、EMBASE、CNKI、CBM等数据库、学术会议资料和学位论文等.全面收集有关两种方法治疗腰椎退行性疾病的文献.制定文献纳入及排除标准,由2名研究者分别独立筛选文献,按照Cochrane Handbook 5.1进行严格的质量评估,并用Revman 5.2软件进行Meta分析.[结果]经过筛选,共有6篇研究符合纳入标准,包括487例患者被纳入分析.Meta分析结果显示,PLIF组的融合率＞ PLF组[OR=3.90,95％ CI (2.05,7.40),P＜0.001],但PLIF组术后1年ODI评分＜PLF组[WMD=-3.86,95％ CI(-7.59,-0.t3),P=0.04],差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05);而两组在手术时间[WMD=15.85,95％CI(-16.25,47.96),P=0.33]、术中失血量[WMD=-90.57,95％ CI(-292.50,111.36),P=0.38]术后并发症[OR =0.99,95％CI (0.22,4.47),P=0.99]、二次手术率[OR =0.87,95％ CI (0.52,1.45),P=0.25]无统计学差异(P＞0.5).[结论] PLIF手术方式的骨融合率较高,但术后1年ODI评分低于PLF组,且两组在手术时间、术中失血量、术后并发症、二次手术率方面结果相似.     

Decompression plus fusion versus decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To compare the clinical effectiveness of decompression plus fusion and decompression alone for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available evidence was performed.

Methods

A search of the literature was conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. Relevant studies comparing decompression plus fusion and decompression alone were selected according to eligibility criteria. Predefined endpoints were extracted and meta-analyzed from the identified studies.

Results

Four randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies were eligible. The pooled data revealed that fusion was associated with significantly higher rates of satisfaction and lower leg pain scores when compared with decompression alone. However, fusion significantly increased the intraoperative blood loss, operative time and hospital stay. Both techniques had similar ODI, back pain scores, complication rate, and reoperation rate.

Conclusions

Based on the available evidence, decompression plus fusion maybe be better than decompression alone in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Fusion had advantages of improvement of clinical satisfaction, as well as reduction of postoperative leg pain, with similar complication rate to decompression alone.

     

Decompression alone versus decompression with fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Surgical decompression is standard care in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, but there remains controversy over the benefits of adding fusion. The persistent lack of consensus on this matter and the availability of new data warrants a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

Methods

Multiple online databases were systematically searched up to October 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing outcomes of decompression alone versus decompression with fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes included leg and back pain, surgical outcomes, and radiological outcomes. Pooled effect estimates were calculated and presented as mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) at two-year follow-up.

Results

Of the identified 2403 studies, eventually five RCTs and two prospective studies were included. Overall, most studies had a low or unclear risk of selection bias and most studies were focused on low grade degenerative spondylolisthesis. All patient-reported outcomes showed low statistical heterogeneity. Overall, there was high-quality evidence suggesting no difference in functionality at two years of follow-up (MD − 0.31, 95% CI − 3.81 to 3.19). Furthermore, there was high-quality evidence of no difference in leg pain (MD − 1.79, 95% CI − 5.08 to 1.50) or back pain (MD − 2.54, 95% CI − 6.76 to 1.67) between patients undergoing decompression vs. decompression with fusion. Pooled surgical outcomes showed less blood loss after decompression only, shorter length of hospital stay, and a similar reoperation rate compared to decompression with fusion.

Conclusion

Based on the current literature, there is high-quality evidence of no difference in functionality after decompression alone compared to decompression with fusion in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at 2 years of follow-up. Further studies should focus on long-term comparative outcomes, health economic evaluations, and identifying those patients that may benefit more from decompression with fusion instead of decompression alone. This review was registered at Prospero (CRD42021291603).

     

动态稳定与融合治疗单节段退行性腰椎滑脱比较

[目的]前瞻性对比分析Dynesys动态稳定与融合治疗单节段退行性腰椎滑脱的临床疗效.[方法]2013年1月-2016年6月46例单节段退行性腰椎滑脱患者随机分为两组,其中,22例采用Dynesys动态稳定(Dynesys组),24例采用后路融合固定(PLIF组).比较两组围手术期、随访期及影像学资料.[结果]两组患者...     

单纯减压与减压融合术治疗老年退行性腰椎管狭窄症的Meta分析

目的对单纯减压术与减压融合术治疗老年退行性腰椎管狭窄症进行Meta分析。方法计算机检索Pub Med、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、万方数据库和中国期刊全文数据库中2016年2月以前的相关文献。根据纳入与排除标准,由2名研究者分别独立筛选文献,按照Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具严格进行质量评估,并利用Rev Man 5.2软件对相关结局指标(总体疗效、手术时间、术中出血量、并发症发生率、二次手术率)进行Meta分析。结果纳入9篇符合纳入标准的随机对照试验,共964例,单纯减压组580例,减压融合组384例。Meta分析结果显示,与减压融合组比较,单纯减压组手术时间和术中出血量明显更少,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);而2组在术后总体疗效、并发症发生率和二次手术率方面差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论单纯减压和减压融合术治疗老年退行性腰椎管狭窄症的疗效相当,但单纯减压术具有手术创伤小、出血量少、手术时间短、术后康复快的优点。     

Pedicle screws versus cortical screws in posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXTA few meta-analyses have compared conventional pedicle screws (PS) with cortical bone trajectory-pedicle screws (cortical screw [CS]) in posterior lumbar fusion surgery. However, these studies did not control for diagnosis, which has been shown to impact surgical outcomes.PURPOSETo compare PS with CS as a posterior fixation technique in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).STUDY DESIGNSystematic review and meta-analysis.METHODSWe searched the Cochrane, Embase, and Medline databases for articles that compared postoperative outcomes between PS and CS for posterior stabilization in PLIF for DS with November 11, 2020, as the publication cutoff. The differences in primary and secondary outcome measures were calculated and analyzed for significance (p<.05). All the reported means were pooled.RESULTSA total of 916 publications were assessed; 5 studies met all the study criteria. The fusion rates between PS and CS groups were not significantly different (p=.41). Blood loss and operative time were significantly less in the CS group than the PS group (p=.04 and 0.02, respectively), but the length of stay was not significantly different (p=.08). The total complication rate was significantly less in CS group than that in PS group (p=.002). The rates of adjacent segment pathology (ASP) and operation for ASP in the CS group were significantly less than the PS group (p=.03 and .04, respectively).CONCLUSIONSThough CS and PS appear to have similar 1-year fusion rates and length of stay, there appears to lower blood loss and operative time with CS. Though encouraging, these findings were based on low-quality evidence from a small number of retrospective studies that are prone to bias.     

Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The surgical procedures used for arthrodesis in the lumbar spine for degenerative lumbar diseases remain controversial. This systematic review aims to assess and compare clinical outcomes along with the complications and fusion of each technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) or minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS LLIF)) for treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Relevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to July 19, 2016 that reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back and leg pain visual analog score (VAS), postoperative complications, and fusion of either technique. Fifty-eight studies were included for the analysis of MIS-TLIF; 40 studies were included for analysis of LLIF, and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) study was included for comparison of MIS-TLIF to LLIF. Overall, there were 9506 patients (5728 in the MIS-TLIF group and 3778 in the LLIF group). Indirect meta-analysis, MIS-TLIF provided better postoperative back and leg pain (VAS), disabilities (ODI), and risk of having complications when compared to LLIF technique, but the fusion rate was not significantly different between the two techniques. However, direct meta-analysis between RCT study and pooled indirect meta-analysis of MIS-TLIF have better pain, disabilities, and complication but no statistically significant difference when compared to LLIF. In LLIF, the pooled mean ODI and VAS back pain were 2.91 (95% CI 2.49, 3.33) and 23.24 (95% CI 18.96, 27.51) in MIS approach whereas 3.14 (95% CI 2.29, 4.04) and 28.29 (95% CI 21.92, 34.67) in traditional approach. In terms of complications and fusion rate, there was no difference in both groups. In lumbar interbody fusion, MIS-TLIF had better ODI, VAS pain, and complication rate when compared to LLIF with direct and indirect meta-analysis methods. However, in terms of fusion rates, there were no differences between the two techniques.     

Interspinous spacers versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

Purpose

Our aim is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of interspinous spacers versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative lumbar spinal diseases.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library through September 2015. Included studies were performed according to eligibility criteria. Data of complication rate, post-operative back visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, length of hospital stay (LOS), range of motion (ROM) at the surgical, proximal and distal segments were extracted and analyzed.

Results

Ten studies were selected from 177 citations. The pooled data demonstrated the interspinous spacers group had a lower estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference [WMD]: ?175.66 ml; 95 % confidence interval [CI], ?241.03 to ?110.30; p?<?0.00001), shorter operative time (WMD: ?55.47 min; 95%CI, ?74.29 to ?36.65; p?<?0.00001), larger range of motion (ROM) at the surgical segment (WMD: 3.97 degree; 95%CI, ?3.24 to ?1.91; p?<?0.00001) and more limited ROM at the proximal segment (WMD: ?2.58 degree; 95%CI, 2.48 to 5.47; p?<?0.00001) after operation. Post-operative back VAS score, ODI score, length of hospital stay, complication rate and ROM at the distal segment showed no difference between the two groups.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis suggested that interspinous spacers appear to be a safe and effective alternative to PLIF for selective patients with degenerative lumbar spinal diseases. However, more randomized controlled trials (RCT) are still needed to further confirm our results.

     

Unilateral versus bilateral fixation for lumbar spinal fusion: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

The objective of this study was to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral fixation to bilateral fixation for the lumbar degenerative disease.

Study design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched databases including PubMed Central, MEDLINE (from 1966), EMBASE (from 1980), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for randomized controlled trials or non-randomized controlled trials that compare unilateral fixation with bilateral fixation for the treatment for lumbar disease. Exclusion criteria were non-controlled studies, follow-up <6 months, combined anterior and posterior surgery, lumbar tumors, and non-English writing paper. Methodologic quality was assessed, relevant data were retrieved, and the appropriate meta-analysis was performed. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The main end points included the rate of fusion, visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), intra-operative blood loss, operating time, and the rate of complications.

Results

A total of seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Four relevant randomized controlled trials, one prospective study, and two retrospective studies involving 499 patients were identified. Patients in unilateral pedicle fixation group compared with bilateral pedicle screw fixation group on the fusion rate, VAS, ODI scores, and complication rate demonstrated no significant differences (P > 0.05, respectively). However, intra-operative blood loss and operating time in unilateral fixation group were significantly less than bilateral fixation group (P < 0.0001, respectively).

Conclusions

Unilateral fixation seems to be an effective, feasible, and safe procedure in one or two segmental disease when compare with bilateral instrumentation.