ArticleGlobal spine journal2024
Short-Term Comparison Between Unilateral Versus Bilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in Short-Level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Prospective Randomized Study.
Article in Global spine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disparity between early radiographic decompression and one-year patient satisfaction after single-level LLIF: proposal of the structural improvement score (SIS) and QOL improvement score (QIS).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 · 2026Article
- Oblique lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation in a single lateral position for degenerative lumbar diseases.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation Vs Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation for Single Level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Outcomes, Cost Analysis, and Radiation Exposure.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Exploratory comparisons of unilateral and bilateral fixation in unilateral biportal endoscopic extreme transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation for treating two-level lumbar degenerative diseases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mid-term efficacy of OLIF combined with unilateral pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comprehensive Assessment of Indirect Decompression Through Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire-Based Analysis.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Can zoledronic acid reduce the risk of cage subsidence after oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in the elderly population? A retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Short-term and mid-term evaluation of three types of minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery for treatment of L4/L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Oblique lateral interbody fusion combined with unilateral versus bilateral posterior fixation in patients with osteoporosis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
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
STUDY
designProspective randomized controlled trial.
objectivesNo prospective studies have directly compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of unilateral vs bilateral instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). We compared the short-term radiographic, clinical outcomes, and some complications of the unilateral percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) (UPS) vs bilateral PPS (BPS) fixation in short-level spinal fusion with LLIF for LDD.
methodsThis was a prospective randomized controlled study of 33 patients who underwent UPS or BPS fixation after LLIF for LDD; 18 patients were assigned to the UPS group and 15 patients to the BPS group. Clinical outcomes, complication rates, and fusion rates were assessed.
resultsThe two groups were similar in age, sex, preoperative diagnosis, and level of surgery. Blood loss, length of hospital stay, and numeric rating scale score one year after surgery did not differ between groups. The operative time was longer in the BPS than UPS group (120.2 vs 88.8 min, respectively; P = .029). Both groups showed improvement in disc height and dural sac in the immediate postoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, which did not differ significantly between groups. The subsidence grade and fusion rate did not differ, but cage subsidence was more severe in the UPS than BPS group.
conclusionUnilateral and bilateral PPS fixation after LLIF yielded similar short-term clinical and radiological outcomes. However, severe cage subsidence was more common in the UPS group, which suggests that BPS fixation after LLIF may be a better choice over the long term.
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.