Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiologic outcomes of bilateral decompression via a unilateral paramedian approach for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Forty consecutive patients satisfying the inclusion criteria were divided randomly into groups 1 and 2. Patients were treated with unilateral (group 1) or bilateral (group 2) pedicle screw fixation and bilateral decompression via 1-sided (group 1) or bilateral (group 2) paramedian approach. Perioperative parameters (operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, complications, and implant cost), clinical outcome parameters (Japanese Orthopedic Association [JOA] scores, visual analog scale [VAS] scores, and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] preoperatively and at 1 week and 3 months postoperatively), and radiologic parameters (radiograph and computed tomography [CT] scan preoperatively and at 1 week postoperatively) were compared.
No differences were seen between groups 1 and 2 with respect to operation time, blood loss, or hospital stay. No complications were observed in either group. The ODI, JOA, and VAS values of both groups showed significant differences between the preoperative and 1-week or 3-month postoperative values. No significant differences were seen in the improvements of the ODI, JOA, and VAPS values between groups 1 and 2 at any postoperative time point. Postoperative CT indicated that the contralateral decompression was sufficient in both groups.
The short-term results indicate that bilateral decompression via a unilateral paramedian approach for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation is safe, feasible, and effective over the short-term and is more cost-efficient than a bilateral paramedian approach.
- 1.Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl) [in German]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982; 120(3):343–347. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 2.Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(5):567–571. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 3.Salehi SA, Tawk R, Ganju A, LaMarca F, Liu JC, Ondra SL. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients. Neurosurgery. 2004; 54(2):368–374. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 4.Goel VK, Lim TH, Gwon J, Effects of rigidity of an internal fixation device. A comprehensive biomechanical investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991; 16(3 Suppl): S155–161. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 5.Harris BM, Hilibrand AS, Savas PE, 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. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 6.Fernández-Fairen M, Sala P, Ramírez 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. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 7.Lowe TG, Tahernia AD, O’Brien MF, Smith DA. Unilateral transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): indications, technique, and 2-year results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002; 15(1):31–38. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 8.Schwender JD, Holly LT, Rouben DP, Foley KT. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): technical feasibility and initial results. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005; (18 Suppl):S1–6. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 9.Suk KS, Lee HM, Kim NH, Ha JW. Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(14):1843–1847. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 10.McCulloch JA. Microsurgical spinal laminotomies. In: , ed. The Adult Spine: Principles and Practice. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1991:1821–1831. Google Scholar
- 11.Cavusoglu H, Kaya RA, Türkmenoglu ON, Tuncer C, Colak I, Aydin Y. Midterm outcome after unilateral approach for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: 5-year prospective study [published online ahead of print August 22, 2007]. Eur Spine J. 2007; 16(12):2133–2142. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 12.Papavero L, Thiel M, Fritzsche E, Kunze C, Westphal M, Kothe R. Lumbar spinal stenosis: prognostic factors for bilateral microsurgical decompression using a unilateral approach. Neurosurgery. 2009; 65(6 Suppl):182–187. Medline, Google Scholar
- 13.Rahman M, Summers LE, Richter B, Mimran RI, Jacob RP. Comparison of techniques for decompressive lumbar laminectomy: the minimally invasive versus the “classic” open approach. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2008; 51(2):100–105. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 14.Sasai K, Umeda M, Maruyama T, Wakabayashi E, Iida H. Microsurgical bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach for lumbar spinal canal stenosis including degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008; 9(6):554–559. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 15.Iwatsuki K, Yoshimine T, Aoki M. Bilateral interlaminar fenestration and unroofing for the decompression of nerve roots by using a unilateral approach in lumbar canal stenosis. Surg Neurol. 2007; 68(5):487–492. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 16.Tuttle J, Shakir A, Choudhri HF. Paramedian approach for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Technical note and preliminary report on 47 cases. Neurosurg Focus. 2006; 20(3):E5. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 17.Weiner BK, Walker M, Brower RS, McCulloch JA. Microdecompression for lumbar spinal canal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(21):2268–2272. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 18.Young S, Veerapen R, O’Laoire SA. Relief of lumbar canal stenosis using multilevel subarticular fenestrations as an alternative to wide laminectomy: preliminary report. Neurosurgery. 1988; 23(5):628–633. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 19.Palmer S, Turner R, Palmer R. Bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis involving a unilateral approach with microscope and tubular retractor system. J Neurosurg. 2002; 97(2 Suppl):213–217. Medline, Google Scholar
- 20.Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hall JM, Polly DW, Kuklo TR. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005; 18(4):337–346. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 21.Hyun SJ, Kim YB, Kim YS, Postoperative changes in paraspinal muscle volume: comparison between paramedian interfascial and midline approaches for lumbar fusion. J Korean Med Sci. 2007; 22(4):646–651. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 22.Guiot BH, Khoo LT, Fessler RG. A minimally invasive technique for decompression of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27(4):432–438. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 23.Khoo LT, Fessler RG. Microendoscopic decompressive laminotomy for the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Neurosurgery. 2002; 51(5 Suppl):S146–154. Medline, Google Scholar
- 24.Thomé C, Zevgaridis D, Leheta O, Outcome after less-invasive decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized comparison of unilateral laminotomy, bilateral laminotomy, and laminectomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005; 3(2):129–141. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
- 25.Costa F, Sassi M, Cardia A, Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: analysis of results in a series of 374 patients treated with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral microdecompression. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007; 7(6):579–586. Crossref Medline, Google Scholar
