Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Single Intervertebral Cage and Single Side Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Bilateral Cages and Screw Fixation

Abstract

Introduction: The efficacy and economy of an alternative sparing method for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using a single cage fixed with pedicle screws placed on a single side (SS group, n=22) was compared to that of a standard bilateral protocol using two cages and pedicle screws placed bilaterally (BL group, n=15).

Methods: All PLIFs were non-compensation cases done at a single level by a single surgeon and were similar in most background characteristics. Significant differences were not found between the two groups in fusion rates, complications or in 2-year prospectively collected outcomes including percent improvement in back and leg pain (visual analog scales) and the Oswestry disability index.

Results: Perioperative results significantly favored the SS group: BL patients lost 81% more blood, used 74% more time for surgery, stayed in hospital 1.7 days longer, and the hospital-related cost per procedure was twice as high. Currently, the SS procedure typically averages less than 1 h and blood loss less than 50 mL. In summary, the BL and SS groups had similar outcomes while the SS procedure provided substantially superior efficiency and economy.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the results of this retrospective comparative level III study warrant further studies on the SS protocol which may lead to the adoption of this minimally invasive protocol in the standard practice of PLIF in selected cases.

Key words

minimally invasive - PLIF - single side fusion - pedicle screws

References

• 1 Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. Indications, operation techniques, after care.  J Neurosurg. 1953;  10 154-168
• 2 Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P. et al . Chronic low back pain and fusion: A comparison of three surgical techniques.  Spine. 2002;  27 1131-1141
• 3 Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Geiger JM. A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumber fusion.  Mechanical testing. Spine. 1991;  16 ((6 Suppl)) 277-282
• 4 Resnick DK, Groff MC. Evidence-based guidelines in lumbar spine surgery. In: Guiding Neurosurgery by Evidence. Pollock, BE (ed). Progress in Neurological Surgery. 2006 19: 123-134
• 5 DiPaola CP, Molinari RW. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion.  J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;  16 130-139
• 6 Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A. et al . Is one cage enough in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: A comparison of unilateral single cage interbody fusion to bilateral cages.  J Spinal Disorders. 2007;  20 60-64
• 7 Suk SS, Lee HM, Kim NK. et al . Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion.  Spine. 2000;  25 1843-1847
• 8 Molinari RW, Sloboda J, Johnstone FL. Are 2 cages needed with instrumented PLIF? A comparison of 1 vs. 2 interbody cages in a military population.  Am J Orthopedics. 2003;  32 337-343
• 9 Krag MH, Beynnon BD , Pope MH. et al . An internal fixator for posterior application to short segment of the thoracic, lumbar or lumbosacral spine.  Clin Orthop. 1986;  203 75-98
• 10 Roy-Camille R, Sailant G, Mazel C. Internal fixation of the lumbar spine with pedicle screw plating.  Clin Orthop. 1986;  203 7-17
• 11 Zhao J, Hai Y, Ordway NR. et al . Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using posterolateral placement of a single cylindrical threaded cage.  Spine. 2000;  25 425-430
• 12 Hacker RJ. Comparison of interbody fusion approaches for disabling low back pain.  Spine. 1997;  22 660-666
• 13 Shono Y, Kaneda K, Abumi K. et al . Stability of posterior spinal instrum-entation and its effects on adjacent motion segments in the lumbosacral spine.  Spine. 1998;  23 1550-1558
• 14 Deutsch H, Musacchio MJ. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral screw fixation.  Neurosurgery Focus. 2006;  20 1-5
• 15 Kabins MB, Weinstein JN, Spratt KF. et al . Isolated L4-L5 fusions using the variable screw placement systems: Unilateral versus bilateral.  J Spinal Disord. 1992;  5 39-49
• 16 Okuyama K, Kido T, Unoki E. et al . PLIF with a titanium cage and excised facet joint bone for degenerative spondylolisthesis – in augmentation with a pedicle screw.  J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;  20 53-59
• 17 Asch HL, Lewis PJ, Moreland DG. et al . Prospective multiple outcomes study of lumbar microdiscectomy: should 75–80% success rates be the norm?.  J Neurosurg. 2002;  96 ((I Suppl)) 34-44
• 18 Resnick DK, Choudhiri TF, Dailey AT. et al . Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 1: introduction and methodology.  J Neurosurgery. 2005;  2 637-638
• 19 Resnick DK, Choudhiri TF, Dailey AT. et al . Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: assessment of functional outcome.  J Neurosurgery. 2005;  2 639-646
• 20 Silverman E. Your drug target audience.  The Scientist. 2008;  21 65-69

Correspondence