ACE Report Cover
Uni- vs bilateral pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Langue
Download Download Download
Télécharger
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citer
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoris
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Langue
Download Download Download
Télécharger
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citer
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoris
SPINE
Uni- vs bilateral pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion .

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2015;3(4):38 PLoS One. 2014 Nov 6;9(11):e111979.
Auteurs contributeurs

Z Liu Q Fei B Wang P Lv C Chi Y Yang F Zhao J Lin Z Ma

6 studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 1 clinical controlled trial) encompassing 298 patients were included in this meta-analysis with the purpose of comparing the efficacy and safety of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion for one-level degenerative lumbar spine disease. Unilateral pedicle screw fixation achieved significantly shorter operative time and reduced blood loss compared to bilateral screw fixation. However, VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, ODI scores, overall fusion rate, overall incidence of complications, and length of hospital stay were similar between uni- and bilateral pedicle screw fixation.


Détails du financement de la publication +
Financement:
Non-Industry funded
Sponsor:
Basic-Clinical Cooperation Project in Capital Medical University, Beijing Outstanding Talent Training Project
Conflits:
None disclosed

Risque de partialité

10/10

Critères de déclaration

16/20

Indice de fragilité

N/A

Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?

Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?

Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?

Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?

Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?

Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?

Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?

Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?

Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?

How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?

Oui = 1

Incertain = 0,5

Non pertinent = 0

Non = 0

L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.

4/4

Introduction

3/4

Accessing Data

3/4

Analysing Data

3/4

Results

3/4

Discussion

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.

Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?

Minimally invasive (MIS) lumbar interbody fusion is advantageous for a variety of lumbar degenerative disorders as it reduces morbidity and offers early ambulation when compared to traditional open surgery. Usually, bilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation is the standard procedure in lumbar interbody fusion. However, recent studies suggest unilateral PS fixation is an equally effective technique that requires shorter operating time. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of unilateral versus bilateral PS fixation in MIS lumber interbody fusion for one-level degenerative lumbar spine disease.

Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?

How does the efficacy and safety compare between unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar spine disease?

Caractéristiques de l'étude +
Source des données:
A search for relevant studies published in peer-reviewed journals was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, and Cochrane Library from inception to March 30, 2014. References of selected studies were manually searched to identify additional articles.
Termes de l'index:
Key terms included 'lumbar interbody fusion', 'pedicle screw fixation', 'minimally invasive', 'unilateral', and 'bilateral'.
Sélection de l'étude:
Full-text, English-language randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials published in peer reviewed journals that investigated bilateral versus unilateral pedicle screw fixation procedures in patients diagnosed with single-level lumbar degenerative disease were selected. Study retrieval was performed independently by two reviewers, and any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Six studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 1 clinical controlled trial) with a total of 298 patients were selected.
Extraction des données:
Data on the primary outcome measures including visual analogue leg and back pain score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), fusion rate, and complications were extracted. Secondary outcome measures including intra-operative blood loss, operating time, and hospital stay were also retrieved. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by two authors independently.
Synthèse des données:
Dichotomous outcomes were presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) while continuous outcomes were summarized using mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. In the absence of significant statistical heterogeneity a fixed-effect model was employed, otherwise a random-effects model was used. The summary statistic for each individual study was calculated using the meta-analysis program of the Cochrane Collaboration (Review Manager 5.2).
Quels sont les résultats importants ?
  • Pooled results were similar between unilateral and bilateral groups with respect to VAS back pain (5 studies: MD= -0.02 [95% CI -0.17 to 0.13]; p=0.77), VAS leg pain (3 studies: MD= -0.10 [95% CI -0.20 to 0.01]; p=0.06), and ODI scores (5 studies: MD= 0.31 [95% CI -0.66 to 1.27]; p=0.54).
  • The overall fusion rate was not significantly different between the unilateral (134/146) and bilateral (146/152) groups (OR=0.47 [95% CI 0.18 to 1.27]; p=0.14). Likewise, the overall incidence of complications was not significant different between the unilateral (8/146) and bilateral (7/152) groups (OR=1.25 [95% CI 0.44 to 3.59]; p=0.67).
  • Operative time was significantly shorter (4 studies; p=0.02) and blood loss was significantly reduced (4 studies; p=0.002) with unilateral pedicle screw fixation, but hospital stay was not significantly different between groups (3 studies; p=0.54).
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?

Unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation offered similar clinical outcome and fusion rate in patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation differed in blood loss and operative time, both of which were significantly reduced in unilateral cohorts.

Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?

It appears that unilateral pedicle screw fixation has the ability to shorten operative time and reduce blood loss while achieving similar clinical outcomes and fusion success to bilateral pedicle screw fixation. The authors acknowledge that the presence of methodological limitations, existence of heterogeneity among studies, and lack of complete data recording weaken the results of this study. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes and long-term follow-up are necessary before the wider application of unilateral pedicle screw fixation can be recommended.

AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ

Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.

0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
Vous avez atteint votre limite de 4 vues d'articles gratuits ce mois-ci

Accédez à OrthoEvidence pour seulement 1,99 $ par semaine.

Restez informé des dernières données. Annulez à tout moment.
  • Évaluations critiques des derniers essais contrôlés randomisés à fort impact et des revues systématiques en orthopédie.
  • Accès au contenu des podcasts OrthoEvidence, y compris les collaborations avec le Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, les entretiens avec des chirurgiens de renommée internationale et les tables rondes sur l'actualité et les sujets orthopédiques.
  • Abonnement à The Pulse, une lettre d'information bihebdomadaire fondée sur des données probantes, conçue pour vous aider à prendre de meilleures décisions cliniques.
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bienvenue à nouveau !
Vous avez oublié votre mot de passe ?
Commencez votre essai GRATUIT dès aujourd'hui !

Votre compte sera affilié à
et inclut un accès gratuit à OrthoEvidence.


OU
Vous avez oublié votre mot de passe ?

OU
Veuillez vérifier votre adresse électronique

Si un compte existe avec l'adresse e-mail fournie, un e-mail de réinitialisation du mot de passe vous sera envoyé. Si vous ne voyez pas d'e-mail, veuillez vérifier votre dossier de spam ou de courrier indésirable.

Pour plus d'assistance, contactez notre équipe d'assistance.

Veuillez vous connecter pour activer cette fonction

Pour accéder à cette fonctionnalité, vous devez être connecté à un compte OrthoEvidence actif. Veuillez vous connecter ou créer un compte d'essai GRATUIT.

Traduire le rapport ACE

OrthoEvidence utilise un service de traduction tiers pour rendre le contenu accessible dans plusieurs langues. Veuillez noter que même si tous les efforts sont faits pour assurer l'exactitude, les traductions ne sont pas toujours parfaites.

Comment citer ce document ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Uni- vs bilateral pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion. OE Journal. 2015;3(4):38. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/uni-vs-bilateral-pedicle-screw-fixation-in-minimally-invasive-lumbar-interbody-fusion

Copier la citation
Veuillez vous connecter pour activer cette fonction

Pour accéder à cette fonctionnalité, vous devez être connecté à un compte OrthoEvidence actif. Veuillez vous connecter ou créer un compte d'essai GRATUIT.

Fonctionnalité Membre Premium

Pour accéder à cette fonctionnalité, vous devez être connecté à un compte Premium OrthoEvidence.

Partager ACE Report