NDLI: Clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparisons between unilateral and bilateral cage insertion

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	Cho, Jae Hwan Hwang, Chang Ju Lee, Dong-Ho Lee, Choon Sung
Abstract	Background Although the original technique involves inserting two cages bilaterally, there could be situations that only allow for insertion of one cage unilaterally. However, only a few studies have compared the outcomes between unilateral and bilateral cage insertion. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) between unilaterally and bilaterally inserted cages. Methods Among 206 eligible patients who underwent 1- or 2-level PLIF, 78 patients were 1:3 cohort-matched by age, sex, and operation level (group U, 19 patients with unilateral cages; and group B, 57 patients with bilateral cages). Fusion status was evaluated by computed tomography (CT) scans at postoperative 1 year. Clinical outcomes were measured by visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D. Radiological and clinical parameters were compared between the two groups. Risk factors for pseudarthrosis were also analyzed by multivariate analysis. Results The demographic data were not significantly different between the two groups. However, previous laminectomy, asymmetric disc collapse, and fusion at L5-S1 level were more frequently found in group U (P = 0.003, P = 0.014, and P = 0.014, respectively). Furthermore, pseudarthrosis was more frequently observed in group U (36.8%) than in group B (7.0%) (P = 0.004). Back pain VAS was higher in group U at postoperative 1 year (P = 0.033). Lower general activity function of EQ-5D was observed in group U at postoperative 1 year (P = 0.035). Older age (P = 0.028), unilateral cage (P = 0.007), and higher bone mineral density (P = 0.033) were positively correlated with pseudarthrosis. Conclusions Unilaterally inserted cage might be a possible risk factor for pseudarthrosis when performing PLIF, which could be related with the difficult working conditions such as scars due to previous laminectomy or asymmetric disc collapse. Furthermore, suboptimal clinical outcomes are expected following PLIF with unilateral cage insertion at postoperative 1 year regardless of similar clinical outcomes at postoperative 2 year. Therefore, caution is advised when inserting cages unilaterally, especially under above-mentioned conditions in terms of its possible relationship with symptomatic pseudarthrosis.
Related Links	https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12891-021-04852-y.pdf
Ending Page	8
Page Count	8
Starting Page	1
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	14712474
DOI	10.1186/s12891-021-04852-y
Journal	BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Issue Number	1
Volume Number	22
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2021-11-17
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Orthopedics Rehabilitation Rheumatology Sports Medicine Internal Medicine Epidemiology Posterior lumbar interbody fusion Cage Outcomes Cohort matching Unilateral Bilateral Pseudarthrosis Risk factor
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Orthopedics and Sports Medicine Rheumatology
Journal Impact Factor	2.2/2023
5-Year Journal Impact Factor	2.6/2023

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Cage positioning as a risk factor for posterior cage migration following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion – an analysis of 953 cases

Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion

The role of cage height on the flexibility and load sharing of lumbar spine after lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral and bilateral instrumentation: a biomechanical study

Biomechanical evaluation of autologous bone-cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis

Clinical and radiological evaluation of cage subsidence following oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral fixation

A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis

Analysis of the correlative factors in the selection of interbody fusion cage height in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Comparison of lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression and minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for one-level lumbar spinal stenosis

Titanium interlayer-mediated hydroxyapatite-coated polyetheretherketone cage in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery

Clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparisons between unilateral and bilateral cage insertion

Similar Documents

Cage positioning as a risk factor for posterior cage migration following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion – an analysis of 953 cases

Comparison of the PEEK cage and an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinous process and laminae in posterior lumbar interbody fusion

The role of cage height on the flexibility and load sharing of lumbar spine after lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral and bilateral instrumentation: a biomechanical study

Biomechanical evaluation of autologous bone-cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis

Clinical and radiological evaluation of cage subsidence following oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral fixation

A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis

Analysis of the correlative factors in the selection of interbody fusion cage height in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Comparison of lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression and minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for one-level lumbar spinal stenosis

Titanium interlayer-mediated hydroxyapatite-coated polyetheretherketone cage in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery

Clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparisons between unilateral and bilateral cage insertion