SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2014
Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar fusion: A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Is unilateral pedicle screw fixation superior than bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with cage fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2015Pooled it
- Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2015Pooled it
- Unilateral uniportal endoscopy with unilateral fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases: A retrospective observational study and technical note.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Observational
- MRI Assessment of the Early Disc Degeneration Two Levels above Fused Lumbar Spine Segment: A Comparison after Unilateral and Bilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Procedure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Do Trunk Muscles Affect the Lumbar Interbody Fusion Rate?: Correlation of Trunk Muscle Cross Sectional Area and Fusion Rates after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Stand-Alone Cage.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2016Article
- The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical research" articles in the European Spine Journal 2014.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTraditionally, 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsA 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).
conclusionsThis 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24549387What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.