SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
introductionThe minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) that adopts paramedian incisions and tubular retractors to perform the decompression and interbody fusion has been widely used in the surgery for lumber degenerative disease (LDD). Bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) and unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) are the primary fixing techniques in MIS-TLIF. We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety between UPSF and BPSF in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF surgery for LDD. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for potential RCTs till June 2023. The effects of the fixation methods on clinical outcomes were estimated using the odd ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and a random-effects model.
resultsWe obtained six RCTs. There was no significant difference between UPSF and BPSF in fusion rate, hospitalization day, low back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and SF-36 for physical functioning at 3-6 months and ≥ 6 months after surgery. Neither the total complication nor the individual complications showed differences between the two methods. However, UPSF significantly decreased operation time (MD = - 39.05; 95% CI: - 53.50 to - 24.67) and estimated blood loss (MD = - 60.41; 95% CI: - 79.09 to - 41.73) compared with BPSF.
conclusionUPSF is better than BPSF when operation time and estimated blood loss are considered. BPSF may be considered for patients with single-level LDD without high-grade spondylolisthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39891723What 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.