Home About Journal AHEAD OF PRINT Current Issue Back Issues Instructions Submission Search Subscribe Blog    

Users Online: 232 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 53  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 542-547

A comparison study of three posterior fixation strategies in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion lumbar for the treatment of degenerative diseases

1 Department of Spinal Surgery, Ningbo No. 6 Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China
2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University and Rothman Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Yong Hu
1059 East Zhongshan Road, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315040
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_282_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: There are various posterior fixations utilized with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Previous studies have focused on the comparison of two fixation techniques. Materials and Methods: Sixty five patients with single-level lumbar disease were included in this retrospective study. Group A was treated by TLIF with bilateral pedicle screw (BPS), Group B treated by TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw (UPS), and Group C treated by TLIF with UPS plus contralateral translaminar facet screw (UPSFS). The operative time, blood loss, Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scores (JOA), and visual analog scores (VAS) were recorded. Radiographic examination was used to assess fusion rates and incidence of screw failure. Results: The blood loss and operative times were 188.69 ± 37.69 ml and 132.96.5 ± 8.69 min in BPS group, 117.27 ± 27.11 ml and 99.32 ± 12.94 min in UPS group, and 121.50 ± 22.54 ml and 112.55 ± 9.42 min in UPSFS group; UPS and UPSFS were better than BPS (P < 0.05). The mean followup time was 38.2 months. Fusion rates were – BPS group: 95.6%, UPS group: 90%, UPSFS: 95% (P > 0.05). Screw and/or rod failures were found in three groups (BPS group: 1, UPS group: 2 and UPSFS: 1, P > 0.05). The average postoperative VAS, ODI, and JOA scores of BPS, UPS, and UPSFS were improved significantly in each group compared to preoperative scores (P < 0.05); there were no significant differences between any two groups at each followup time point (P > 0.05). Conclusion: UPSFS with TLIF is a viable treatment option that provides satisfactory clinical results; the clinical outcome and the complication rate were comparable to BPS. In addition, the invasive of UPSFS cases was comparable to UPS and better than BPS cases. For UPS, it could be used in suitable patients.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded42    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal