SynthesisMedicine2017
Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Topping-Off Technology versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis.BioMed research international · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Finite Element Analysis of Stress Distribution in Canine Lumbar Fractures with Different Pedicle Screw Insertion Angles.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Role of unilateral partial facet joint preservation in postero-lateral approach lumbar interbody fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis presenting bilateral lower limb symptoms: a retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of postoperative outcomes.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 · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar discectomy for highly downward-migrated disc herniation.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Far lateral lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation and double traversing cages using a biportal endoscopic technique.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Article
- Study of single-level lumbar degenerative diseases treated by unilateral wiltse access with unilateral nail rod fixation assisted by a new automatic retraction device.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Successful outcomes of unilateralWorld journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Article
- Postoperative Spinal Implant Infections (PSII)-A Systematic Review: What Do We Know So Far and What is Critical About It?Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Biomechanical Characterization of Unilateral and Bilateral Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Constructs.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- Clinical and radiographic analysis of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented one-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Minimally invasive resection of a glomus tumor of the thoracic spine: a case report and literature review.The Journal of international medical research · 2019Review
- Assessment of Paraspinal Muscle Atrophy Percentage after Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Unilateral Instrumentation Using a Novel Contralateral Intact Muscle-Controlled Model.Asian spine journal · 2018Article
- Article
- A Comparison Study of Three Posterior Fixation Strategies in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Lumbar for the Treatment of Degenerative Diseases.Indian journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoth unilateral pedicle screw fixation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and bilateral pedicle screw fixation with PLIF are used to treat lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). However, which one is a better treatment for LDD remains considerable controversy. Therefore, the focus of this meta-analysis was to assess the merits and shortcomings of efficacy of these 2 surgical procedures for LDD.
methodsAn extensive search of literature was performed in Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, CNKI, and WANFANG databases on unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with PLIF fusion for LDD, from January 2007 to January 2017 and language was restricted to Chinese or English. The following variables were extracted: blood loss, operation time, length of hospital stay, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, fusion rate, total complications, infection, dural injury, and nerve injury. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3 and STATA 12.0.
resultsA total of 11 studies containing 844 patients were included in our study. The results showed that unilateral is better than bilateral pedicle screw fixation with PLIF in blood loss (P < .00001), operation time (P < .00001), the length of hospital stay (P = .003), and the final follow-up ODI scores (P = .04). However, there are no significant differences in JOA, VAS, and preoperative ODI scores. There are also no significant differences in fusion rate and complications (all P > .05).
conclusionBased on our meta-analysis, our results suggest that both unilateral pedicle screw fixation with PLIF and bilateral pedicle screw fixation with PLIF for LDD have effective results in clinical outcomes. Both 2 methods may result in clinical improvement and similar outcomes of fusion rate and complications; However, compared with bilateral fixation, unilateral fixation produces more satisfactory efficacy in the blood loss and the operation time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.