Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar fusion: A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses

  • Yachao Zhao ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Yachao Zhao, Sidong Yang, Wenyuan Ding

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Spine Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China

    ⨯
  • Sidong Yang ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Yachao Zhao, Sidong Yang, Wenyuan Ding

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Spine Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China

    ⨯
  • Wenyuan Ding

    Contributed equally to this work with: Yachao Zhao, Sidong Yang, Wenyuan Ding

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    wenyuanding@hebmu.edu.cn

    Affiliations Department of Spine Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China, Hebei Provincial Key Laboratory of Orthopedic Biomechanics, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China

    ⨯

Abstract

Objectives

To carry out a systematic review on the basis of overlapping meta-analyses that compare unilateral with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (PSF) in lumbar fusion to identify which study represents the current best evidence, and to provide recommendations of treatment on this topic.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted to identify meta-analyses that compare unilateral with bilateral PSF in lumbar fusion. Only meta-analyses exclusively covering randomized controlled trials were included. Study quality was evaluated using the Oxford Levels of Evidence and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. Then, the Jadad decision algorithm was applied to select the highest-quality study to represent the current best evidence.

Results

A total of 9 studies with Level II of evidence fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included. The scores of AMSTAR criteria for them varied from 5 to 9 (mean 7.78). The current best evidence detected no significant differences between unilateral and bilateral PSF for short-segment lumbar fusion in the functional scores, length of hospital stay, fusion rate, and complication rate. However, unilateral PSF involved a remarkable decrease in operative time and blood loss but increase of cage migration when compared with bilateral PSF.

Conclusions

According to this systematic review, unilateral PSF is an effective method of fixation for short-segment lumbar fusion, has the advantages of reduced operative time and blood loss over bilateral PSF, but increases the risk of cage migration.

Citation: Zhao Y, Yang S, Ding W (2019) Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar fusion: A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. PLoS ONE 14(12): e0226848. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226848

Editor: Osama Farouk, Assiut University Faculty of Medicine, EGYPT

Received: August 7, 2019; Accepted: December 4, 2019; Published: December 20, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Zhao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Lumbar fusion is an effective procedure commonly performed for treating lumbar degenerative disc diseases [1]. Generally, bilateral pedicle screw fixation (PSF) is deemed a standard instrumentation for lumbar fusion. However, the pronounced stiffness of bilateral PSF appears to cause undesired adverse effects such as reduced fusion rate, adjacent segment degeneration, and loss of bone mineral content [2,3]. In response to those concerns, unilateral PSF, which involves less rigidity, has been developed for lumbar fusion.

Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that unilateral PSF is able to maintain the initial stability after lumbar fusion, and decrease the influence of stress-shielding imposed on the fixed level and levels adjacent to the fusion [4,5]. In addition, numerous clinical studies have suggested that unilateral PSF is as effective as bilateral PSF for lumbar fusion but has the advantages of reduced operation time, blood loss, and implant cost [6–14]. A 5-year follow-up study by Toyone et al. [15] also found a lower occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration in patients undergoing unilateral PSF than that in patients who underwent bilateral PSF. Reversely, there exist studies indicating that unilateral PSF provided less stability than did bilateral PSF for lumbar fusion [16–20]. Due to its inherent asymmetry and reduced strength, unilateral PSF was reported to cause postoperative back pain, implant failure, more cage migration, and a relatively lower fusion rate when compared with bilateral PSF [8,21–23].

Recently, multiple meta-analyses have carried out a comparison of unilateral and bilateral PSF in lumbar fusion. However, those overlapping meta-analyses showed discordant results as well. Several studies suggested that unilateral and bilateral PSF were equally safe and effective for lumbar fusion [24–28]. However, the results of other studies indicated that unilateral PSF lead to more cage migration or a relatively lower fusion rate than bilateral PSF [29–33]. As a result, the above conflicting findings may bring uncertainty about which method of fixation is better for lumbar fusion.

The objectives of this study were to carry out a systematic review on the basis of overlapping meta-analyses regarding unilateral versus bilateral PSF in lumbar fusion to provide recommendations of treatment on this topic according to the current best evidence, and to identify potential limitations within current literature that require future research.

Materials and methods

We carried out this systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement [34]. Ethical approval or patient consent is not required for this review.

Literature search

A comprehensive literature search was carried out on July 27, 2019 using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. The following keywords were adopted: unilateral, bilateral, lumbar, fusion, arthrodesis, systematic review, meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently performed the literature search. We first reviewed the titles and abstracts of all articles, and then obtained the full texts of articles that met the inclusion criteria. To identify other potentially eligible articles, the references were manually retrieved and screened as well. Disagreements were discussed and settled by consensus. Full electronic search strategy for PubMed: ((unilateral) OR bilateral) AND lumbar AND ((fusion) OR arthrodesis) AND ((systematic review) OR meta-analysis).

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria were listed as follow: (1) meta-analysis that compares unilateral and bilateral PSF in lumbar fusion; (2) inclusion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exclusively; (3) report of at least 1 outcome (functional scores, fusion rate, operation time, blood loss, complication rate, cage migration and so on); (4) English-language article. Correspondence, narrative reviews, annual meeting abstracts, systematic reviews without a meta-analysis or data pooling, and meta-analyses with no outcome data or including non-RCTs were excluded. In addition, the animal, cadaveric, and other non-clinical studies were also excluded.

Data extraction

From each included study, the following data were extracted by two reviewers independently: first author, date of last literature search, publication journal and date, numbers of RCTs included, inclusion/exclusion criteria, restrictions to publication status and language, search databases, level of evidence, primary study design, software used for data analysis, whether sensitivity or subgroup analysis, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, and publication bias were performed, conflict of interest, I2 statistic value of variables in each meta-analysis. In addition, clinical outcome data were also extracted, including the fusion rate, functional scores, operative time, length of hospital stay, blood loss, implant cost, nonunion rate, reoperation rate, total complication, general complication, infection, dura tear, implant-related complication, screw complication, and the cage migration. Disagreements were discussed and settled by consensus.

Quality assessment

Methodological information of each included study was evaluated via the Oxford Levels of Evidence [35,36]. Furthermore, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument was used to evaluate the study quality as well, which is a tool applied to methodological evaluation of meta-analyses and systematic reviews with good validity, reliability, and responsibility [37–39]. In this review, two reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of each included study independently. Disagreements were discussed and settled by consensus.

Heterogeneity assessment

The heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic which is a quantitative measurement to investigate inter-study variability. When I2 value > 50%, heterogeneity is deemed to exist between studies. If so, two reviews evaluated whether sensitivity or subgroup analysis was carried out to assess the robustness of data pooled and explore the potential causes of heterogeneity.

Application of Jadad decision algorithm

The Jadad decision algorithm was applied to interpret discordant findings among meta-analyses. The possible causes of discordance, as mentioned by Jadad et al. [40], include different study question, inclusion/exclusion criteria, quality assessment, data pooling and extraction, and statistical analysis. Currently, this algorithm is widely used for providing treatment recommendations among conflicting meta-analyses on certain topics [41–45]. Two reviewers independently ran this algorithm, and then a consensus was reached as to which meta-analysis represents the current best evidence.

Results

Literature search

Fig 1 displayed the flowchart of study screening. The initial literature search identified 88 articles. After screening, 9 meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria and were finally included in this systematic review [27–29,33,46–50]. Those overlapping meta-analyses were published between 2014 and 2018 but in different journals, and the numbers of included RCTs among them ranged from 3 to 12 (Table 1). As shown in Table 2, the publication years of primary RCTs were between 2007 and 2015.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226848.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Characteristics of each included study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226848.t001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Primary trials included in each study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226848.t002

Search methodology

Although the studies here conducted a comprehensive literature search, the search databases were discordant among them. All studies searched PubMed or Medline database. Of the 9 included studies, 7 searched Embase, 8 searched the Cochrane Library, whereas Web of Science, Ovid, Springer, CINAHL, Current Controlled Trials, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and other databases were retrieved in different studies. In addition, the restriction of publication language and status was discordant as well. Of the 9 studies, 4 only included articles published in English [29,46,47,50], 1 included both English- and Chinese-languages articles [28], 3 had no linguistic restriction [27,33,49], and the remaining 1 did not refer to restriction of publication language [48]. Only 1 study disclosed that unpublished data were reviewed [47], 1 study did not review unpublished data [50], and the remaining studies did not refer to restriction of publication status [27–29,33,46,48,49]. Details of search methodology applied by the included studies were presented in Table 3.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Search methodology used by each study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226848.t003

Methodological quality

Based on the Oxford Levels of Evidence, we determined each study, which covers only RCTs, to be Level II of evidence (Table 4). Of the 9 included studies, 8 used RevMan for data analyses [27–29,46–50], only 1 used the Stata software [33]. In addition, 3 studies adopted the GRADE system [28,33,48], 7 studies conducted the sensitivity and/or subgroup analyses [27–29,33,46,48,50], and 4 studies assessed the possibility of publication bias [27,33,47,50]. As shown in Table 5, the scores of AMSTAR criteria for included studies varied from 5 to 9 (mean 7.78). Finally, the meta-analysis by Lu et al. [33], with an AMSTAR score of 9, was chosen as the highest-quality study.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Methodological information of each study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226848.t004

thumbnail
Download:
Table 5. AMSTAR criteria for each study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226848.t005

Heterogeneity assessment

All included studies assessed the heterogeneity using the I2 statistic (Table 6). No or slight heterogeneity was found in the fusion rate, nonunion rate, reoperation rate, total complication, general complication, infection, dura tear, implant-related complication, cage migration, and screw complication. Nevertheless, the heterogeneity of operation time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay was very large. There also existed different levels of heterogeneity in the functional outcomes. To further explore the potential sources of heterogeneity, 7 studies performed the sensitivity and/or subgroup analyses [27–29,33,46,48,50], as shown in Table 4.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 6. I2 statistic value of variables in each meta-analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226848.t006

Results of Jadad decision algorithm

Fig 2 showed the pooled results of each meta-analysis. The Jadad decision algorithm was adopted to identify which study represents the current best evidence to provide treatment recommendations. Considering that the 9 included meta-analyses focused on the same clinical question while they did not cover the same primary trials and criteria of study selection, the highest-quality study can be selected based on the methodological quality and publication status of primary trials, language restrictions, and data analysis on individual patients (Fig 3). Eventually, the meta-analysis by Lu et al. [33] was identified as the highest-quality study with more RCTs using the Jadad decision algorithm. This study detected no significant differences between unilateral and bilateral PSF for lumbar fusion in the functional scores, length of hospital stay, fusion rate, and complication rate. However, unilateral PSF significantly reduced the operative time and blood loss but increased cage migration when compared with bilateral PSF.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. The pooled results of each included meta-analysis.

VAS, Visual Analog Scale; JOA, Japanese Orthopedic Association; ODI, Oswestry Disability Index; SF-36, Short-Form Health Survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226848.g002

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. The flowchart of Jadad decision algorithm.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226848.g003

Discussion

Currently, numerous RCTs have made a comparison of unilateral and bilateral PSF in lumbar fusion, whereas their findings are conflicting as to which method of fixation is better [6–13,21,23,51–54]. To further clarify this issue, multiple meta-analyses based on RCTs, which provide the highest level of evidence, have also compared the two fixation methods for lumbar fusion [27–29,33,46–50]. Nevertheless, the results are discordant as well. Recently, several systematic reviews have been conducted based on overlapping meta-analyses [41–45], which can provide information that may assist decision makers in choosing the highest-quality study among meta-analyses with discordant findings.

The objectives of this study were to carry out a systematic review on the basis of overlapping meta-analyses based on RCTs regarding unilateral versus bilateral PSF in lumbar fusion to identify which study represents the highest level of evidence to provide treatment recommendations on this topic. After a comprehensive literature search, 9 meta-analyses were finally included in this review [27–29,33,46–50]. Jadad et al. [40] designed a decision tool to allow selection of the highest-quality study from among conflicting meta-analyses, which has been widely used in medical fields [41–45]. Finally, the meta-analysis by Lu et al. [33], which included the most RCTs with Level II of evidence, was chosen as the highest-quality study based on the Jadad decision algorithm. The current best evidence detected no obvious differences between the two fixation methods for lumbar fusion in functional scores, length of hospital stay, fusion rate, and complication rate. Furthermore, unilateral PSF was superior to bilateral PSF in operation time and blood loss, but increased cage migration. Based on the above findings, Lu et al. [33] concluded that unilateral PSF is recommended as the optimal fixation method for lumbar fusion.

Interestingly, the 9 included studies were published within the last few years and focused on the same study question, whereas they did not cover the same primary RCTs and criteria of study selection [27–29,33,46–50]. As a result, findings were discordant regarding unilateral versus bilateral PSF in lumbar fusion. According to this review, no significant differences were detected between the two methods in VAS, ODI, SF-36 scores, and fusion rate. As for JOA scores, 3 studies found no significant differences between the two methods [27,33,50], but 2 studies reported data in favor of unilateral PSF [47,48]. In conclusion, the current evidence suggested that both unilateral and bilateral PSF were effective fixation methods for lumbar fusion though various levels of heterogeneity were reported in the functional scores. The reason may be that the effectiveness mainly depends on sufficient decompression and fusion rather than fixation method, type of operation, or surgical segments which are the potential sources of heterogeneity between studies.

With regard to surgical trauma, 6 studies showed that unilateral PSF significantly reduced the operative time and/or blood loss in comparison with bilateral PSF for lumbar fusion [27,28,33,47,49,50]. While no remarkable difference was detected in blood loss, the study by Xiao et al. [46] also reported data favoring unilateral PSF. In addition, unilateral PSF achieved a similar hospital stay with bilateral PSF, despite the fact that lesser dissection of soft tissues benefits functional recovery. Although there was large heterogeneity across studies, which was associated with type of operation, surgical segments, or skill of the surgeons, the current evidence concluded that unilateral PSF was superior to bilateral PSF in operation time and blood loss due to its not dissecting the soft tissues on the contralateral side.

Despite unilateral PSF was reported to cause adverse effects due to its inherent asymmetry and reduced stability [8,21–23], no significant differences were detected between them for lumbar fusion in the fusion rate, nonunion rate, reoperation rate, general complication, and total complication according to this review. With respect to implant-related complications, 5 studies found no significant differences between the two methods [27,28,46–48]. Of the 4 studies that reported data of cage migration, 2 detected no significant differences but an increased incidence in patients undergoing unilateral PSF [46,48], the other 2, including the highest-quality study, favored bilateral PSF [29,33]. Risk factors for cage migration are multiple such as cage type, cage position, cage material, cage size, disc space shape, multilevel fusion, degenerative scoliosis, and unilateral PSF [55–59]. The increased cage migration in patients who underwent unilateral PSF may be caused by inherent asymmetry that results in asymmetry. No or slight heterogeneity exists between studies in the above outcomes. To sum up, the current evidence demonstrated that unilateral PSF increased the risk of cage migration in lumbar fusion when compared with bilateral PSF.

This study had several limitations. First, only articles that published in English were included. Non-English articles meeting the eligibility criteria may have been excluded. Second, meta-analysis that covers only RCTs was identified as Level II of evidence. Therefore, we cannot provide treatment recommendations on this topic based on Level I of evidence. Third, none of the primary trials had data for more than 5 years. Long-term follow up is required to further verify these findings. Fourth, the current literature mainly focused on comparing unilateral and bilateral PSF in short-segment lumbar fusion. A comparison of them in long-segment lumbar fusion could not be made. Last but not least, this review may be underpowered by other potential limitations and bias within the included meta-analyses and primary trials.

Conclusions

This is the first systematic review on the basis of overlapping meta-analyses to analyze unilateral versus bilateral PSF in lumbar fusion. According to the current best evidence, no significant differences were detected between unilateral and bilateral PSF for short-segment lumbar fusion in functional scores, length of hospital stay, fusion rate, and complication rate. However, unilateral PSF involved a remarkable decrease in operative time and blood loss but increase of cage migration when compared with bilateral PSF. In conclusion, unilateral PSF is an effective method of fixation for short-segment lumbar fusion, has the advantages of reduced operative time and blood loss over bilateral PSF, but increases the risk of cage migration.

Supporting information

S1 File. PRISMA checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226848.s001

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Zhiwei Jia for his contribution to assessment of the methodological quality of each included study.

References

  1. 1. Deyo RA, Nachemson A, Mirza SK. Spinal-fusion surgery—the case for restraint. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350(7):722–6. pmid:14960750
  2. 2. McAfee PC, Farey ID, Sutterlin CE, Gurr KR, Warden KE, Cunningham BW. 1989 Volvo Award in basic science. Device-related osteoporosis with spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989; 14(9):919–26.
  3. 3. Lee CS, Hwang CJ, Lee SW, Ahn YJ, Kim YT, Lee DH, et al. Risk factors for adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18(11):1637–43. pmid:19533182
  4. 4. Goel VK, Lim TH, Gwon J, Chen JY, Winterbottom JM, Park JB, et al. Effects of rigidity of an internal fixation device. A comprehensive biomechanical investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991; 16(3 Suppl):S155–61.
  5. 5. Chen HH, Cheung HH, Wang WK, Li A, Li KC. Biomechanical analysis of unilateral fixation with interbody cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(4):E92–6.
  6. 6. Lin B, Lin QY, He MC, Liu H, Guo ZM, Lin KS. Clinical study on unilateral pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases under Quadrant system. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2012; 25(6):468–73. pmid:23016381
  7. 7. Xie Y, Ma H, Li H, Ding W, Zhao C, Zhang P, et al. Comparative study of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthopedics. 2012; 35(10):e1517–23. pmid:23027490
  8. 8. Xue H, Tu Y, Cai M. Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine J. 2012; 12(3):209–15. pmid:22381573
  9. 9. Dahdaleh NS, Nixon AT, Lawton CD, Wong AP, Smith ZA, Fessler RG. Outcome following unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a single-center randomized prospective study. Neurosurg Focus. 2013; 35(2):E13. pmid:23905951
  10. 10. Lin B, Xu Y, He Y, Zhang B, Lin Q, He M. Minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screw fixation and lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. Orthopedics. 2013; 36(8):e1071–6. pmid:23937756
  11. 11. Zhang K, Sun W, Zhao CQ, Li H, Ding W, Xie YZ, et al. Unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in two-level degenerative lumbar disorders: a prospective randomised study. Int Orthop. 2014; 38(1):111–6. pmid:23917853
  12. 12. Shen X, Zhang H, Gu X, Gu G, Zhou X, He S. Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2014; 21(9):1612–6. pmid:24814852
  13. 13. Dong J, Rong L, Feng F, Liu B, Xu Y, Wang Q, et al. Unilateral pedicle screw fixation through a tubular retractor via the Wiltse approach compared with conventional bilateral pedicle screw fixation for single-segment degenerative lumbar instability: a prospective randomized study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014; 20(1):53–9. pmid:24236667
  14. 14. Gu G, Zhang H, Fan G, He S, Meng X, Gu X, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in two-level degenerative lumbar diseases. Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(8):1640–8. pmid:26002354
  15. 15. Toyone T, Ozawa T, Kamikawa K, Watanabe A, Matsuki K, Yamashita T, et al. Subsequent vertebral fractures following spinal fusion surgery for degenerative lumbar disease: a mean ten-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(21):1915–8.
  16. 16. Harris BM, Hilibrand AS, Savas PE, Pellegrino A, Vaccaro AR, Siegler S, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(4):E65–70.
  17. 17. Slucky AV, Brodke DS, Bachus KN, Droge JA, Braun JT. Less invasive posterior fixation method following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis. Spine J. 2006; 6(1):78–85. pmid:16413452
  18. 18. Yucesoy K, Yuksel KZ, Baek S, Sonntag VK, Crawford NR. Biomechanics of unilateral compared with bilateral lumbar pedicle screw fixation for stabilization of unilateral vertebral disease. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008; 8(1):44–51. pmid:18173346
  19. 19. Sethi A, Muzumdar AM, Ingalhalikar A, Vaidya R. Biomechanical analysis of a novel posterior construct in a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion model an in vitro study. Spine J. 2011; 11(9):863–9. pmid:21802998
  20. 20. Chen SH, Lin SC, Tsai WC, Wang CW, Chao SH. Biomechanical comparison of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws fixation for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion after decompressive surgery—a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012; 13:72. pmid:22591664
  21. 21. Aoki Y, Yamagata M, Ikeda Y, Nakajima F, Ohtori S, Nakagawa K, et al. A prospective randomized controlled study comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques for degenerative spondylolisthesis: unilateral pedicle screw and 1 cage versus bilateral pedicle screws and 2 cages. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012; 17(2):153–9. pmid:22702892
  22. 22. Mao L, Chen GD, Xu XM, Guo Z, Yang HL. Comparison of lumbar interbody fusion performed with unilateral or bilateral pedicle screw. Orthopedics. 2013; 36(4):e489–93. pmid:23590791
  23. 23. Duncan JW, Bailey RA. An analysis of fusion cage migration in unilateral and bilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22(2):439–45. pmid:22878377
  24. 24. Luo J, Gong M, Gao M, Huang S, Yu T, Zou X. Both unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation are effective for lumbar spinal fusion-A meta-analysis-based systematic review. Journal of Orthopaedic TranslationJ. Orthop. Transl. 2014; 2(2):66–74.
  25. 25. Liu Z, Fei Q, Wang B, Lv P, Chi C, Yang Y, et al. A meta-analysis of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion. PLoS One. 2014; 9(11):e111979. pmid:25375315
  26. 26. Phan K, Leung V, Scherman DB, Tan AR, Rao PJ, Mobbs RJ. Bilateral versus unilateral instrumentation in spinal surgery: Systematic review and trial sequential analysis of prospective studies. J Clin Neurosci. 2016; 30:15–23. pmid:27068653
  27. 27. Ren S, Hu Y. Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis of twelve randomized controlled trials. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016; 9(9):17113–27.
  28. 28. Xin Z, Li W. Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in short-segment lumbar spinal fusion: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int Orthop. 2016; 40(2):355–64. pmid:26174053
  29. 29. Yuan C, Chen K, Zhang H, Zhang H, He S. Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis of complication and fusion rate. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014; 117:28–32. pmid:24438800
  30. 30. Han YC, Liu ZQ, Wang SJ, Li LJ, Tan J. Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2014; 23(5):974–84. pmid:24549387
  31. 31. Cheriyan T, Lafage V, Bendo JA, Spivak JM, Goldstein JA, Errico TJ. Complications of unilateral versus bilateral instrumentation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A meta-analysis. Spine J. 2015; 15(10):191S.
  32. 32. Ren C, Qin R, Sun P, Wang P. Effectiveness and safety of unilateral pedicle screw fixation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017; 137(4):441–50. pmid:28168642
  33. 33. Lu P, Pan T, Dai T, Chen G, Shi KQ. Is unilateral pedicle screw fixation superior than bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018; 13(1):296. pmid:30466462
  34. 34. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000100. pmid:19621070
  35. 35. Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD. Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85-A(1):1–3.
  36. 36. Slobogean G, Bhandari M. Introducing levels of evidence to the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma: implementation and future directions. J Orthop Trauma. 2012; 26(3):127–8. pmid:22330974
  37. 37. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7:10. pmid:17302989
  38. 38. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One. 2007; 2(12):e1350. pmid:18159233
  39. 39. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(10):1013–20. pmid:19230606
  40. 40. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ. 1997; 156(10):1411–6. pmid:9164400
  41. 41. Mascarenhas R, Chalmers PN, Sayegh ET, Bhandari M, Verma NN, Cole BJ, et al. Is double-row rotator cuff repair clinically superior to single-row rotator cuff repair: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Arthroscopy. 2014; 30(9):1156–65. pmid:24821226
  42. 42. Li Q, Wang C, Huo Y, Jia Z, Wang X. Minimally invasive versus open surgery for acute Achilles tendon rupture: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. J Orthop Surg Res. 2016; 11(1):65. pmid:27266275
  43. 43. Ding F, Jia Z, Zhao Z, Xie L, Gao X, Ma D, et al. Total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Eur Spine J. 2017; 26(3):806–15. pmid:27448810
  44. 44. Tan G, Li F, Zhou D, Cai X, Huang Y, Liu F. Unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97(33):e11968.
  45. 45. Fu BS, Jia HL, Zhou DS, Liu FX. Surgical and Non-Surgical Treatment for 3-Part and 4-Part Fractures of the Proximal Humerus: A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-Analyses. Orthop Surg. 2019; 11(3):356–65. pmid:31207136
  46. 46. Xiao SW, Jiang H, Yang LJ, Xiao ZM. Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with cage fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(4):764–74. pmid:25510516
  47. 47. Li X, Lv C, Yan T. Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials. Med Sci Monit. 2015; 21:782–90. pmid:25774950
  48. 48. Molinari RW, Saleh A, Molinari RJ, Hermsmeyer J, Dettori JR. Unilateral versus Bilateral Instrumentation in Spinal Surgery: A Systematic Review. Global Spine J. 2015; 5(3):185–94. pmid:26131385
  49. 49. Wang L, Wang Y, Li Z, Yu B, Li Y. Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF): a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg. 2014; 14:87. pmid:25378083
  50. 50. Hu XQ, Wu XL, Xu C, Zheng XH, Jin YL, Wu LJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. PLoS One. 2014; 9(1):e87501. pmid:24489929
  51. 51. Choi UY, Park JY, Kim KH, Kuh SU, Chin DK, Kim KS, et al. Unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus. 2013; 35(2):E11. pmid:23905949
  52. 52. Fernandez-Fairen M, Sala P, Ramirez H, Gil J. A prospective randomized study of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(4):395–401.
  53. 53. Feng ZZ, Cao YW, Jiang C, Jiang XX. Short-term outcome of bilateral decompression via a unilateral paramedian approach for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Orthopedics. 2011; 34(5):364. pmid:21598901
  54. 54. Shen X, Wang L, Zhang H, Gu X, Gu G, He S. Radiographic Analysis of One-level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF) With Unilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases. Clin Spine Surg. 2016; 29(1):E1–8. pmid:24189485
  55. 55. Abbushi A, Cabraja M, Thomale UW, Woiciechowsky C, Kroppenstedt SN. The influence of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion rates in patients with monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18(11):1621–8. pmid:19475436
  56. 56. Smith AJ, Arginteanu M, Moore F, Steinberger A, Camins M. Increased incidence of cage migration and nonunion in instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bioabsorbable cages. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010; 13(3):388–93. pmid:20809735
  57. 57. Aoki Y, Yamagata M, Nakajima F, Ikeda Y, Shimizu K, Yoshihara M, et al. Examining risk factors for posterior migration of fusion cages following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a possible limitation of unilateral pedicle screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010; 13(3):381–7. pmid:20809734
  58. 58. Kimura H, Shikata J, Odate S, Soeda T, Yamamura S. Risk factors for cage retropulsion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of 1070 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012; 37(13):1164–9.
  59. 59. Aoki Y, Yamagata M, Nakajima F, Ikeda Y, Takahashi K. Posterior migration of fusion cages in degenerative lumbar disease treated with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a report of three patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(1):E54–8.