Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation Research Articles

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of postoperative outcomes.

To determine of the impact of ALIF with minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) on perioperative outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and the rates of fusion, subsidence, and adjacent segment stenosis. All adult patients who underwent one-level ALIF with UPSF or BPSF at an academic institution between 2015 and 2022 were retrospectively identified. Postoperative outcomes including length of hospital stay (LOS), wound complications, readmissions, and revisions were determined. The rates of fusion, screw loosening, adjacent segment stenosis, and subsidence were assessed on one-year postoperative CT. Lumbar alignment including lumbar lordosis, L4-S1 lordosis, regional lordosis, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, and sacral slope were assessed on standing x-rays at preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final postoperative follow-up. Univariate and multivariate analysis compared outcomes across posterior fixation groups. A total of 60 patients were included (27 UPSF, 33 BPSF). Patients with UPSF were significantly younger (p = 0.011). Operative time was significantly greater in the BPSF group in univariate (p < 0.001) and multivariate analysis (ß=104.1, p < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss, LOS, lordosis, pelvic parameters, fusion rate, subsidence, screw loosening, adjacent segment stenosis, and revision rate did not differ significantly between fixation groups. Though sacral slope (p = 0.037) was significantly greater in the BPSF group, fixation type was not a significant predictor on regression. ALIF with UPSF relative to BPSF predicted decreased operative time but was not a significant predictor of postoperative outcomes. ALIF with UPSF can be considered to increase operative efficiency without compromising construct stability.

Comparative Biomechanical Analysis of Unilateral, Bilateral, and Lateral Pedicle Screw Implantation in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Study.

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) can be combined with different screw instrumentations. The standard screw instrumentation is bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF). However, the operation is time consuming because a lateral recumbent position must be adopted for OLIF during surgery before a prone position is adopted for BPSF. This study aimed to employ a finite element analysis to investigate the biomechanical effects of OLIF combined with BPSF, unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF), or lateral pedicle screw fixation (LPSF). In this study, three lumbar vertebra finite element models for OLIF surgery with three different fixation methods were developed. The finite element models were assigned six loading conditions (flexion, extension, right lateral bending, left lateral bending, right axial rotation, and left axial rotation), and the total deformation and von Mises stress distribution of the finite element models were observed. The study results showed unremarkable differences in total deformation among different groups (the maximum difference range is approximately 0.6248% to 1.3227%), and that flexion has larger total deformation (5.3604 mm to 5.4011 mm). The groups exhibited different endplate stress because of different movements, but these differences were not large (the maximum difference range between each group is approximately 0.455% to 5.0102%). Using UPSF fixation may lead to higher cage stress (411.08 MPa); however, the stress produced on the endplate was comparable to that in the other two groups. Therefore, the length of surgery can be shortened when unilateral back screws are used for UPSF. In addition, the total deformation and endplate stress of UPSF did not differ much from that of BPSF. Hence, combining OLIF with UPSF can save time and enhance stability, which is comparable to a standard BPSF surgery; thus, this method can be considered by spine surgeons.

Design and Biomechanical Evaluation of a Bidirectional Expandable Cage for Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) surgery is a minimally invasive spinal surgery technique that has become increasingly popular in recent years. The primary objective of the current study was to design a minimally invasive expandable fusion device that can reduce iatrogenic nerve damage and minimize endplate damage during OLIF surgery, while restoring intervertebral height and alignment. The second objective was to use finite element analysis to evaluate the biomechanical stability of the newly designed expandable fusion device after implantation into the intervertebral space. A new bidirectional expandable cage was designed in this study. A finite element model (FEM) of L3-L5 lumbar segment was modified to simulate decompression and fusion. The modified FEMs were constructed in the following cases: intact model, bidirectional expandable cage (alone, with unilateral pedicle screws [UPSs], and with bilateral pedicle screws [BPSs]) model, conventional OLIF cage (alone, with UPSs, and with BPSs) model. To simulate physiological loadings, the models were subjected to a follower compressive pre-load of 400 N, in addition to 8.0 Nm of flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation moments. All modified FEMs exhibited a significant reduction in motion at L3-L5 compared to the intact model. Among the fusion models, the bidirectional expandable cage (BEC) with BPS model displayed the highest stiffness and demonstrated a reduced range of motion (48.5%-75.7%). Additionally, the peak stress on the endplate in the conventional OLIF cage (Conv-OLIF) model was generally lower than that in the BEC models. The cage in the BEC ALONE model exhibited the highest stress (93.87-176.3 MPa) on the endplate in most motion modes, while the cage in the Conv-OLIF+BPS model had the lowest stress (16.67-30.58 MPa) on the endplate in most motion modes. The maximum stress on the fixation in the BEC fusion models was generally lower than that in the Conv-OLIF fusion group under the same loading conditions. The OLIF ALONE model had the lowest stress on the adjacent disc, while the stress level in the BEC ALONE model was very close to it. The BEC implanted models had higher stiffness, and more proper stress distribution on the posterior fixation was comparable to that of the Conv-OLIF models. However, the endplate stress peaks and cage stress peaks of the BEC models were slightly higher than those of the Conv-OLIF models, though still within a clinically acceptable range. Taking into account both biomechanical and clinical perspectives, BEC-assisted unilateral pedicle screw fixation meet clinical demand and may serve as a viable alternative to Conv-OLIF fusion.

Unilateral pedicle screw fixation with interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative disease

ObjectiveUnilateral transpedicular screw is widely used in lumbar spine surgery due to its primary role in enhancing arthrodesis with less tissue damage when combined with posterolateral lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Unilateral instrumentation can achieve similar outcomes to those of bilateral instrumentation. Its advantage is that it precludes the possibility of damaging the contralateral soft tissues and muscles. Our study assess the operative efficacy and benefits of unilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation and decompression with interbody diagonal cage for lower lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). Patients and MethodsA total of 60 consecutive patients who underwent either a bilateral or unilateral procedure (30 patients in each group) for treating lower LDD were included in this study. Radiological and clinical assessments were performed at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery to assess interbody fusion rates and clinical outcomes. ResultsNo significant differences were observed between the two cohorts regarding age, gender, weight, presence of comorbidities, or baseline neurologic deficit. The unilateral cases showed statistically significant less surgical trauma in terms of fluoroscopy time, operative time, intraoperative blood transfusion, and length of incision. The clinical and radiological outcomes in both cohorts were quite similar. ConclusionBoth unilateral and bilateral PS fixations with PLIF have quite similar outcomes for LDD. However, based on its minimal invasiveness, the unilateral approach can be an attractive alternative to bilateral instrumentation. Our study recommends unilateral short-segment fixation as an appropriate choice in selected cases.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UNILF): outcomes at 7years.

To assess clinical, functional and radiographical results of one-level minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UNILIF) in the treatment of stable lumbar degenerative diseases with a minimum of 5years of follow-up. From January 2012 to December 2016, clinical and radiological data of patients with degenerative lumbar disease managed by UNILIF were prospectively collected. Patients with a follow-up that ended before 5years were excluded. SF-12, Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) were collected preoperatively, at 2 years and at the last follow-up. A full-spine standing radiograph was performed at each follow-up appointment. Mean operative time was 74.7 (± 19) minutes, mean blood loss was 131.1 (± 207) ml and mean follow-up was 7.5 (± 1.7) years. All functional scores and VAS were significantly improved between the preoperative and the 2 years postoperative. Between the 2 years postoperative and the last follow-up ODI and VAS continued to significantly improved. Fusion rate was 98.6% on radiographic analysis at follow-up. UNILIF method is a safe and effective surgical strategy. It provides a durable improvement in functional score over 7years of follow-up with a stable radiological correction over time.

Far lateral lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation and double traversing cages using a biportal endoscopic technique.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with a single cage and bilateral pedicle screw fixation results in decreased stability or increased risk of cage displacement Wang and Guo (Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng, 24(3):308-319, 6). We succeeded in inserting double traversing cages with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) during far lateral TLIF using unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE). We attempted far lateral UBE-TLIF through two small incisions for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with unilateral stenosis. With the help of novel instruments, far lateral UBE-TLIF with double traversing cages and UPSF was performed under trachealintubationanaesthesia. We successfully performed far lateral UBE-TLIF with double traversing cages and UPSF. This procedure may be an alternative minimally invasive method for treating lumbar instability.

Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation for Single-Level Lumbar Degenerative Spine: A Systematic Review of Meta-analyses

AIM: The objectives of this study were to perform a systematic literature review based on studies that compare unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation (PSF) in lumbosacral spine fusion to provide recommendations for the treatment of degenerative diseases of the spine, to identify studies with a more complete evidence base, and to identify possible limitations in available literature sources that require further research. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies that compare unilateral versus bilateral PSF versus interbody implant placement used the treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbosacral spine. The study included meta-analyses that met the inclusion criteria. The quality of meta-analyses was evaluated with a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) score and the most relevant meta-analysis was determined by applying the Jadad algorithm. RESULTS: Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. The results of AMSTAR score ranged from 6 to 9, based on the results, four meta-analysis can be assigned to “middle” category and remained 8 to “upper” category. According to the results obtained, there was no significant difference between unilateral and bilateral PSF; however, unilateral fixation had advantages in the duration of surgical treatment and intraoperative blood loss. СONCLUSION: According to this systematic review, unilateral PSF is an effective fixation method in the formation of lumbosacral spine fusion and has advantages in reducing the duration of surgical treatment and intraoperative blood loss compared to bilateral PSF.

Biomechanical Assessment of Lumbar Stability: Finite Element Analysis of TLIF with a Novel Combination of Coflex, and Pedicle Screws

Purpose Finite element analysis is frequently used for lumbar spine biomechanical analysis. The primary scope of this work is to illustrate, using finite element analysis, how the biomechanical behavior of the Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion (TLIF), along with a novel combination of the Interspinous process device (IPD) and pedicle screws, improves lumbar spine stability. Methods In this study, Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation (UPSF) and Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation (BPSF) were used. Four FE model was developed using ANSYS software, as follows: (1) Intact model; (2) TLIF with "U"-shaped Coflex-F IPD (UCF); (3) TLIF with Coflex-F and UPSF (UCF + UPSF); and (4) TLIF with Coflex-F and BPSF (UCF + BPSF). The intact model was subjected to four pure moments (10 Nm), and the results were validated with previous literature data. The intact model results correlated well with the literature data, and the model was validated. Three surgical models were subjected to 7.5 Nm four pure moments, Flexion (FL), Extension (ET), Lateral bending (LB), and Axial rotation (AR) and a 280N follower load. Results The surgical model results are compared with the intact model. The comprehensive analysis results show the UCF + BPSF surgical model gave a good advantage on range of motion, cage stress, Coflex-F stress, and endplate stress compared among the two models. Conclusions This study proposes that the UCF + BPSF system helps to reduce the stress on the implant and adjacent endplates and gives very good stability to the lumbar spine under the various static loading conditions.

Biomechanical Comparison of Unilateral and Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation after Multilevel Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion.

Human Cadaveric Biomechanical Study. Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF) utilizing a wide cage has been reported as having favorable biomechanical characteristics. We examine the biomechanical stability of unilateral pedicle screw and rod fixation after multilevel LLIF utilizing 26mm wide cages compared to bilateral fixation. Eight human cadaveric specimens of L1-L5 were included. Specimens were attached to a universal testing machine (MTS 30/G). Three-dimensional specimen range of motion (ROM) was recorded using an optical motion-tracking device. Specimens were tested in 3 conditions: 1) intact, 2) L1-L5 LLIF (4 levels) with unilateral rod, 3) L1-L5 LLIF with bilateral rods. From the intact condition, LLIF with unilateral rod decreased flexion-extension by 77%, lateral bending by 53%, and axial rotation by 26%. In LLIF with bilateral rods, flexion-extension decreased by 83%, lateral bending by 64%, and axial rotation by 34%. Comparing unilateral and bilateral fixation, LLIF with bilateral rods reduced ROM by a further 23% in flexion-extension, 25% in lateral bending, and 11% in axial rotation. The difference was statistically significant in flexion-extension and lateral bending (P < .005). Considerable decreases in ROM were observed after multilevel (4-level) LLIF utilizing 26mm cages supplemented with both unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws and rods. The addition of bilateral fixation provides a 10-25% additional decrease in ROM. These results can inform surgeons of the incremental biomechanical benefit when considering unilateral or bilateral posterior fixation after multilevel LLIF.

Successful outcomes of unilateral vs bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar interbody fusion: A meta-analysis with evidence grading.

Whether it's better to adopt unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) fixation or to use bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) one for lumbar degenerative diseases is still controversially undetermined. To make a comparison between UPS and BPS fixation as to how they work efficaciously and safely in patients suffering from lumbar degenerative diseases. We have searched a lot in the databases through 2020 with index terms such as "unilateral pedicle screw fixation" and "bilateral pedicle screw fixation." Only randomized controlled trials and some prospective cohort studies could be found, yielding 15 studies. The intervention was unilateral pedicle screw fixation; Primarily We've got outcomes of complications and fusion rates. Secondarily, we've achieved outcomes regarding total blood loss, operative time, as well as length of stay. Softwares were installed and utilized for subgroup analysis, analyzing forest plots, sensitivity, heterogeneity, forest plots, publication bias, and risk of bias. Fifteen previous cases of study including 992 participants have been involved in our meta-analysis. UPS had slightly lower effects on fusion rate [relative risk (RR) = 0.949, 95%CI: 0.910 to 0.990, P = 0.015], which contributed mostly to this meta-analysis, and similar complication rates (RR = 1.140, 95%CI: 0.792 to 1.640, P = 0.481), Δ visual analog scale [standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.178, 95%CI: -0.021 to 0.378, P = 0.080], and Δ Oswestry disability index (SMD = -0.254, 95%CI: -0.820 to 0.329, P = 0.402). In contrast, an obvious difference has been observed in Δ Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score (SMD = 0.305, 95%CI: 0.046 to 0.563, P = 0.021), total blood loss (SMD = -1.586, 95%CI: -2.182 to -0.990, P = 0.000), operation time (SMD = -2.831, 95%CI: -3.753 to -1.909, P = 0.000), and length of hospital stay (SMD = -0.614, 95%CI: -1.050 to -0.179, P = 0.006). Bilateral fixation is more effective than unilateral fixation regarding fusion rate after lumbar interbody fusion. However, JOA, operation time, total blood loss, as well as length of stay were improved for unilateral fixation.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic extreme transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with large cage combined with endoscopic unilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases: a technical note and preliminary effects.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the feasibility and preliminary effects of unilateral biportal endoscopic extreme transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(UBE-eXTLIF) with large cage combined with endoscopic unilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases. Patients with lumbar degenerative diseases who received UBE-eXTLIF with large cage combined with endoscopic unilateral pedicle screw fixation from June 2022 to July 2022 were retrospectively analyzed, including 4 females and 1 males. The clinical symptoms and signs were consistent with the imaging changes. We recorded operation time, length of postoperative hospital stay, and complications. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and modified Macnab scale was used to evaluate the clinical efficacy at preoperative, postoperative 1month, and the last follow-up. The operation was successfully completed in all cases. The operation time was 150-180min, with an average of 164.60 ± 12.03min. No serious complications such as dural tears and vascular and nerve injuries occurred during operation. All the patients got out of bed 1-3days after surgery and were hospitalized 4-5days after surgery, with an average of 4.20 ± 0.45days. Preoperative VAS scores of low back pain were 6.20 ± 0.84 and respectively decreased to 2.20 ± 0.45 and 1.40 ± 0.55 at postoperative 1month and at the last follow-up, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Preoperative VAS scores of lower limb pain were 4.60 ± 2.61 and respectively decreased to 1.00 ± 0.71 and 0.60 ± 0.55 at postoperative 1month and at the last follow-up, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Preoperative ODI scores were 62.00 ± 3.16 and respectively decreased to 38.00 ± 1.41 and 32.40 ± 3.29 at postoperative 1month and at the last follow-up, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). According to the modified Macnab criteria, the final outcome was excellent in 4 cases and good in 1 case. Five patients could return to normal activities within 3weeks. UBE-eXTLIF with large cage combined with endoscopic unilateral pedicle screw fixation can achieve excellent clinical results and may become a new minimally invasive endoscopic fusion method for lumbar degenerative diseases.

Unilateral pedicle screw fixation of lumber spine: A safe internal fixation method

BackgroundUnilateral pedicle screw fixation several advantages, including reduced trauma and low cost. However, its stability and safety have not been widely recognized. In this study, the biomechanical differences in the vertebral body and screw-rod system after unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation were compared using both the finite element model and calf lumbar model. MethodWe used the verified finite element model to establish unilateral and bilateral posterior lumbar surgery models. The biomechanical data of different parts of the models were recorded under different working states. Then, three calf lumbar models were selected to simulate different working states with the help of a universal testing machine and other instruments. Finally, the biomechanical data of the screw-rod system were obtained from a static strain test and analysis system. ResultsBy analyzing and comparing biomechanical data obtained using two different methods, this study found that unilateral pedicle screw fixation does not bring excessive loads to the lumbar spine and screw-rod system. ConclusionFrom the perspective of biomechanics, unilateral pedicle screw fixation is considered a safe and reliable implantation technique.

Clinical efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation via Wiltse approach in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis

To evaluate the efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation via Wiltse approach in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. From July 2017 to January 2019, 90 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, including 38 males and 52 females, aged from 43 to 75 years old with an average of(59.9±8.8) years old, and were treated with oblique lumbar interbody fusion(OLIF) combined with Wiltse unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Surgical decompression and fixation was performed in 50 cases of single segment, 32 cases of double segments and 8 cases of three segments. The distribution of responsible segments included 8 cases of L2-L3, 12 cases of L3-L4 and 30 cases of L4-L5 on single segment, 10 cases of L2-L4 and 22 cases of L3-L5 on double segments, and 8 cases of L2-L5 on three segments. The operation time, blood loss and occurrence of complications were recorded, Visual analogue scale(VAS), Oswestry Disability Index(ODI) and SF-36 scale were used to evaluate clinical efficacy. Lumbar X-ray and MRI were taken at three days after operation, interverterbral space height, intervertebral foraminal height, interverterbral foraminal area, and spinal canal area were measured, and interbody fusion was evaluated according to CT at half a year after operation. All patients were followed up from 12 to 33 months, with an average of (20.2±6.6) months. Mean operation time was (103.3±35.9) min, and mean intraoperative blood loss was (70.4±17.8) ml. VAS of low back pain leg pain, and ODI decreased from 6.2±1.1, 6.1±0.9 and (59.9±4.2)% to 2.7±0.5, 2.5±0.5 and (31.3±8.8)%. SF-36 scale significantly increased from (37.2±3.1) to (54.9±6.1) at the six months postoperation(P<0.05). The intervertebral space height, intervertebral foraminal height, intervertebral foraminal area, and spinal canal area were significantly improved at 3 days after operation(P<0.05). Six months after operation, CT scan showed well fusion in 87 cases, but 3 cases with poor fusion, including 1 case of single segment, 2 cases of multi-segments. The total fusion rate was 96.7% (87/90), the single segment fusion rate was 98.0% (49/50), and the multi-segments fusion rate was 95.0%(38/40). The overall incidence of complications was 17.8%(16/90), including transient iliopsoas muscle weakness in 5 cases (5.6%), endplate fracture in 2 cases (2.2%), peritoneal injury in 1 case (1.1%), postoperative hematoma in 1 case (1.1%), adjacent segment disease in 1 case(1.1%), and fusion cage subsidence in 6 cases (6.7%). Three patients was followed up for recurrent nerve root pain and the symptoms were relieved after revision operation. All complications were relieved or disappeared in varying degrees during the follow-up period, and there were no complications such as cage displacement and screw fracture. OLIF combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation via Wiltse approach is effective in treating lumbar spinal stenosis with minimally invasive advantages such as less trauma and less complications. Under the premise of strictly grasping the indications, this method could also achieve satisfactory clinical results in multi-segments oprations.

Effects of osteoporosis on the biomechanics of various supplemental fixations co-applied with oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF): a finite element analysis

BackgroundOblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is an important surgical modality for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease. Various supplemental fixations can be co-applied with OLIF, increasing OLIF stability and reducing complications. However, it is unclear whether osteoporosis affects the success of supplemental fixations; therefore, this study analyzed the effects of osteoporosis on various supplemental fixations co-applied with OLIF.MethodsWe developed and validated an L3-S1 finite element (FE) model; we assigned different material properties to each component and established models of the osteoporotic and normal bone lumbar spine. We explored the outcomes of OLIF combined with each of five supplemental fixations: standalone OLIF; OLIF with lateral plate fixation (OLIF + LPF); OLIF with translaminar facet joint fixation and unilateral pedicle screw fixation (OLIF + TFJF + UPSF); OLIF with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (OLIF + UPSF); and OLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (OLIF + BPSF). Under the various working conditions, we calculated the ranges of motion (ROMs) of the normal bone and osteoporosis models, the maximum Mises stresses of the fixation instruments (MMSFIs), and the average Mises stresses on cancellous bone (AMSCBs).ResultsCompared with the normal bone OLIF model, no demonstrable change in any segmental ROM was apparent. The MMSFIs increased in all five osteoporotic OLIF models. In the OLIF + TFJF + UPSF model, the MMSFIs increased sharply in forward flexion and extension. The stress changes of the OLIF + UPSF, OLIF + BPSF, and OLIF + TFJF + UPSF models were similar; all stresses trended upward. The AMSCBs decreased in all five osteoporotic OLIF models during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The average stress change of cancellous bone was most obvious under extension. The AMSCBs of the five OLIF models decreased by 14%, 23.44%, 21.97%, 40.56%, and 22.44% respectively.ConclusionsFor some supplemental fixations, the AMSCBs were all reduced and the MMSFIs were all increased in the osteoporotic model, compared with the OLIF model of normal bone. Therefore, the biomechanical performance of an osteoporotic model may be inferior to the biomechanical performance of a normal model for the same fixation method; in some instances, it may increase the risks of fracture and internal fixation failure.

Biomechanical Evaluation of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Coflex-F and Pedicle Screw Fixation: Finite Element Analysis of Static and Vibration Conditions.

ObjectiveTo investigate the biomechanics of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with interspinous process device (IPD) or pedicle screw fixation under both static and vibration conditions by the finite element (FE) method.MethodA validated FE model of the L1‐5 lumbar spine was used in this study. This FE model derived from computed tomography images of a healthy female adult volunteer of appropriate age. Then the model was modified to simulate L3‐4 TLIF. Four conditions were compared: (i) intact; (ii) TLIF combined with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF); (iii) TLIF combined with U‐shaped IPD Coflex‐F (CF); and (iv) TLIF combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF). The intact and surgical FE models were analyzed under static and vibration loading conditions respectively. For static loading conditions, four motion modes (flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation) were simulated. For vibration loading conditions, the dynamic responses of lumbar spine under sinusoidal vertical load were simulated.ResultUnder static loading conditions, compared with intact case, BPSF decreased range of motion (ROM) by 92%, 95%, 89% and 92% in flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation, respectively. While CF decreased ROM by 87%, 90%, 69% and 80%, and UPSF decreased ROM by 84%, 89%, 66% and 82%, respectively. Compared with CF, UPSF increased the endplate stress by 5%–8% in flexion, 7%–10% in extension, 2%–4% in lateral bending, and decreased the endplate stress by 16%–19% in axial rotation. Compared with CF, UPSF increased the cage stress by 9% in flexion, 10% in extension, and decreased the cage stress by 3% in lateral bending, and 13% in axial rotation. BPSF decreased the stress responses of endplates and cage compared with CF and UPSF. Compared BPSF, CF decreased the facet joint force (FJF) by 6%–13%, and UPSF decreased the FJF by 4%–12%. During vibration loading conditions, compared with BPSF, CF reduced maximum values of the FJF by 16%–32%, and vibration amplitudes by 22%–35%, while UPSF reduced maximum values by 20%–40%, and vibration amplitudes by 31%–45%.ConclusionCompared with other surgical models, BPSF increased the stability of lumbar spine, and also showed advantages in cage stress and endplate stress. CF showed advantages in IDP and FJF especially during vertical vibration, which may lead to lower risk of adjacent segment degeneration. CF may be an effective alternative to pedicle screw fixation in TLIF procedures.

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis

BACKGROUND CONTEXTTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) is an effective treatment for lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS). However, the effects of TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) on LFS treatment have not been clearly elucidated. PURPOSEWe conducted this study to compare clinical outcomes and radiographic results of TLIF with UPSF and BPSF 2 years after the surgical treatment. DESIGNProspective randomized study. PATIENT SAMPLEThis study included 23 patients undergoing TLIF with UPSF and 25 patients undergoing TLIF with BPSF. OUTCOME MEASURESClinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Radiographic outcomes included foraminal height, disc space height, segmental lordosis, and final fusion rates. METHODSThe clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared between the UPSF and BPSF group. The postoperative improvements were evaluated in either group. Intraoperative data such as duration of operation and estimated blood loss were collected. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov. RESULTSAnalysis of the VAS and ODI scores showed significant improvements in clinical outcomes within each group. No significant differences between the 2 groups were noted in the improvements of the VAS and ODI scores. The mean operative duration and blood loss were significantly greater in the BPSF group than in the UPSF group. There were significant improvements in the height of the foramen and intervertebral space and segmental lordosis in both groups, while there was no significant difference between the groups in amount of the improvements. No significant difference was found in the final fusion rates. CONCLUSIONSTLIF is an appropriate procedure for LFS treatment. With balanced intervertebral support using a cage, UPSF could achieve similar and satisfactory effects on lumbar segmental stability and fusion compared to BPSF. The unilateral approach appears to be associated with slightly shorter operative time and less blood loss.

Biomechanical study of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) augmented with different types of instrumentation: a finite element analysis

BackgroundTo explore the biomechanical differences in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) augmented by different types of instrumentation.MethodsA three-dimensional nonlinear finite element (FE) model of an intact L3-S1 lumbar spine was built and validated. The intact model was modified to develop five OLIF surgery models (Stand-alone OLIF; OLIF with lateral plate fixation [OLIF + LPF]; OLIF with unilateral pedicle screws fixation [OLIF + UPSF]; OLIF with bilateral pedicle screws fixation [OLIF + BPSF]; OLIF with translaminar facet joint fixation + unilateral pedicle screws fixation [OLIF + TFJF + UPSF]) in which the surgical segment was L4–L5. Under a follower load of 500 N, a 7.5-Nm moment was applied to all lumbar spine models to calculate the range of motion (ROM), equivalent stress peak of fixation instruments (ESPFI), equivalent stress peak of cage (ESPC), equivalent stress peak of cortical endplate (ESPCE), and equivalent stress average value of cancellous bone (ESAVCB).ResultsCompared with the intact model, the ROM of the L4–L5 segment in each OLIF surgery model decreased by > 80%. The ROM values of adjacent segments were not significantly different. The ESPFI, ESPC, and ESPCE values of the OLIF + BPSF model were smaller than those of the other OLIF surgery models. The ESAVCB value of the normal lumbar model was less than the ESAVCB values of all OLIF surgical models. In most postures, the ESPFI, ESPCE, and ESAVCB values of the OLIF + LPF model were the largest. The ESPC was higher in the Stand-alone OLIF model than in the other OLIF models. The stresses of several important components of the OLIF + UPSF and OLIF + TFJF + UPSF models were between those of the OLIF + LPF and OLIF + BPSF models.ConclusionsOur biomechanical FE analysis indicated the greater ability of OLIF + BPSF to retain lumbar stability, resist cage subsidence, and maintain disc height. Therefore, in the augmentation of OLIF, bilateral pedicle screws fixation may be the best approach.

Unilateral versus Bilateral Pedicle Screw Instrumented Transforaminal Interbody Fusion in a Single Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Background&#x0D; The study aims to assess the efficiency, safety and outcome of unilateral pedicle screw fixation with TLIF (Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) vs bilateral pedicle screw fixation with TLIF in cases of single level spondylolisthesis by comparing clinical, functional outcome and the complication rates.&#x0D; Methods&#x0D; We prospectively collected demographics and clinical data of the patients with surgically treated single level lumbar spondylolisthesis grade 1 (n=60) with follow up and comparison between clinical/functional outcomes and complication rates between January 2020 and January 2021 at Cairo University hospitals. We allocated the patients with the unilateral pedicle screw fixation with TLIF as group A and the patients with the bilateral pedicle screw fixation with TLIF as group B.&#x0D; Results&#x0D; Clinical outcome showed statistical significance between Group A and Group B (P-value &lt; 0.001); Functional outcome (using Oswestry’s disability index) between group A and B also showed statistical significance (P-value &lt; 0.001) in favor of group B. Complications in group A was higher especially cage migration in 26.7% of cases with p-value of 0.026 while it was only present in 3.3% of the group B cases.&#x0D; Conclusion&#x0D; We concluded that the bilateral approach showed a statistically significant better clinically/functional outcomes with lower rates of complication in comparison with the unilateral approach.

Comparative Analysis of Unilateral versus Bilateral Instrumentation in TLIF for Lumbar Degenerative Disorder: Single Center Large Series

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation is a well-accepted technique in lumbar degenerative disc disorder. Unilateral instrumentation in TLIF has been reported in the literature. This study aims to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral and bilateral instrumented TLIF in a selected series of patients. We retrospectively analyzed patients operated with unilateral pedicle screw fixation in TLIF (UPSF TLIF) or with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in TLIF (BPSF TLIF) with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Patients were evaluated at regular intervals for functional and radiological outcomes. Functional outcome was assessed using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog score (VAS) preoperatively and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. Fusion rates were assessed using Bridwell interbody fusion grading. Our study shows that there was a significant improvement in VAS and ODI in both groups at 2 years follow-up, and there was no significant difference in improvements between the groups. The complication rates between the groups were similar. The fusion rate in UPSF TLIF was 97.3% and was 98.34% in BPSF TLIF; this was not statistically significant between groups. There is a significant difference in terms of blood loss, duration of surgery, and average duration of hospital stay between the groups (P < .001), favoring UPSF TLIF. Unilateral pedicle screw fixation in open TLIF is comparable with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in terms of patient-reported clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complication rates with the additional benefits of less operative time, less blood loss, shorter hospitalization, and less cost in selective cases. 4.

Comparison of the Unilateral and the Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation without Using an Interbody Cage: Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spine instability is one of the main causes of low back pain and has become more prevalent in recent years. Bilateral pedicle screw fixation is used to perform posterior lumbar stabilization, which is complemented by the installation of an interbody cage. AIM: The aim of the study was evaluating of the results of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation without using of an interbody cage. METHODS: A prospective randomized study of 96 patients was carried out. Forty-seven patients were assigned to the group of the unilateral pedicle screw fixation versus 49 patients were moved to the group of the bilateral pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine. Of the 96 patients, 80 patients eventually were included in the study. However, seven patients in the first group and nine patients were lost to follow-up. Surgery timing, blood loss volume, clinical outcomes (scores on the Oswestry disability index [ODI], EQ-5D and visual analogue scale [VAS]) were evaluated in 6–12 months after surgical treatment. All the patients included in this study underwent functional and control computed tomography in 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: Both groups showed a significant improvement in VAS, EQ-5D, and ODI in 1 year after surgical treatment. The two groups significantly differed in the surgery timing (unilateral – 90.2 min; and bilateral – 129.4 min) and blood loss volume (unilateral – 152.7 ml; and bilateral – 230.1 ml), p &lt; 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation showed similar clinical results, while results in both types of fixation differed in slight manner. However, the duration of surgical treatment and intraoperative blood loss volume proved to be lower for the unilateral fixation group, which indicates that the use of the unilateral fixation can be the choice of performing posterior stabilization at a single-level instability of the spine without using an interbody cage.