@article {Badikillaya929, author = {Vigneshwara Badikillaya and Keyur K. Akbari and Pramod Sudarshan and Hardik Suthar and Muralidharan Venkatesan and Sajan K. Hegde}, title = {Comparative Analysis of Unilateral versus Bilateral Instrumentation in TLIF for Lumbar Degenerative Disorder: Single Center Large Series}, volume = {15}, number = {5}, pages = {929--936}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.14444/8121}, publisher = {International Journal of Spine Surgery}, abstract = {Background: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation is a well-accepted technique in lumbar degenerative disc disorder. Unilateral instrumentation in TLIF has been reported in the literature. This study aims to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral and bilateral instrumented TLIF in a selected series of patients.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients operated with unilateral pedicle screw fixation in TLIF (UPSF TLIF) or with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in TLIF (BPSF TLIF) with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Patients were evaluated at regular intervals for functional and radiological outcomes. Functional outcome was assessed using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog score (VAS) preoperatively and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. Fusion rates were assessed using Bridwell interbody fusion grading.Results: Our study shows that there was a significant improvement in VAS and ODI in both groups at 2 years follow-up, and there was no significant difference in improvements between the groups. The complication rates between the groups were similar. The fusion rate in UPSF TLIF was 97.3\% and was 98.34\% in BPSF TLIF; this was not statistically significant between groups. There is a significant difference in terms of blood loss, duration of surgery, and average duration of hospital stay between the groups (P \< .001), favoring UPSF TLIF.Conclusions: Unilateral pedicle screw fixation in open TLIF is comparable with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in terms of patient-reported clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complication rates with the additional benefits of less operative time, less blood loss, shorter hospitalization, and less cost in selective cases.Level of Evidence: 4.}, issn = {2211-4599}, URL = {https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/15/5/929}, eprint = {https://www.ijssurgery.com/content/15/5/929.full.pdf}, journal = {International Journal of Spine Surgery} }