{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,28]],"date-time":"2026-10-28T14:05:00Z","timestamp":1793196300740,"version":"4.5.0"},"reference-count":23,"publisher":"Scientific Scholar","content-domain":{"domain":["surgicalneurologyint.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":[],"abstract":"<jats:sec id=\"st1\">\n                    <jats:title>Background:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is widely used to treat degenerative spinal pathologies. However, deciding whether to use a unilateral or bilateral facetectomy has historically been based on surgeon preference. This study aims to compare radiological, operative, and clinical outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral facetectomy in open or minimally invasive surgery (MIS) TLIF.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"st2\">\n                    <jats:title>Methods:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, nine cohort studies were identified: two open-only, six MIS-only, and one combined MIS-open TLIF publications. Forest plots generated a pooled analysis for each outcome measure.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"st3\">\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Meta-analyses found no difference in lumbar lordosis between facetectomy procedures in open-only, MIS-only, or combined groups. Disc height change was similar in the MIS-only and combined groups. In MIS-only publications, bilateral facetectomy was associated with higher blood loss, postoperative drainage, and surgical duration. One open-only publication reported that bilateral facetectomy experienced statistically significantly greater delta patient health questionnaire-9 (\u22124.6 \u00b1 5.2 vs. \u22120.8 \u00b1 4.6,\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      = 0.03) and quality-adjusted life year (0.3 \u00b1 0.2 vs. 0.1 \u00b1 0.2,\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      = 0.01). One MIS-only publication reported that unilateral facetectomy incurred significantly greater delta Oswestry disability index after 2 years (25.8 \u00b1 23.5 vs. 8.2 \u00b1 29.6,\n                      <jats:italic>P<\/jats:italic>\n                      = 0.026) while bilateral facetectomy had a greater delta patient-reported outcomes measurement information system-physical function scale after 2 years (13.7 \u00b1 4.4 vs. 3.7 \u00b1 4.0).\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec id=\"st4\">\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Unilateral and bilateral facetectomy produce comparable radiologic, operative, and clinical outcomes. In MIS TLIF, unilateral facetectomy offers reduced blood loss, operative time, and drainage. Unilateral facetectomy is an acceptable and potentially favorable option for standard lumbar degeneration, particularly in MIS TLIF, where exposure is limited to a facet.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.25259\/sni_1024_2025","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,20]],"date-time":"2026-02-20T06:53:12Z","timestamp":1771570392000},"page":"110","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25259\/crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Is there a difference in unilateral versus bilateral facetectomy in an open or minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis"],"prefix":"10.25259","volume":"17","author":[{"given":"Mario Cyriac Tchaya","family":"Tcheukado","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"George","family":"Nageeb","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Jonathan","family":"Hintz","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Michael","family":"Steinmetz","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mohamed","family":"Macki","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"10894","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,20]]},"reference":[{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"30","DOI":"10.26502\/fjsrs0013","article-title":"Unilateral versus bilateral facetectomy and its effect on segmental lordosis and disc height in MIS TLIF","volume":"2","author":"Archer","year":"2020","journal-title":"J Spine Res Surg"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-2","first-page":"125","article-title":"CHIP fusion of the low back following exploration of the spinal canal","volume":"26","author":"Briggs","year":"1944","journal-title":"J Bone Joint Surg"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-3","first-page":"696","article-title":"Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) in interbody fusion technique for degenerative spondylolisthesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"11","author":"Chang","year":"2021","journal-title":"Life (Basel)"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"154","DOI":"10.3171\/jns.1953.10.2.0154","article-title":"The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion","volume":"10","author":"Cloward","year":"1953","journal-title":"J Neurosurg"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-5","first-page":"384","article-title":"Comparison of local and regional radiographic outcomes in minimally invasive and open TLIF: A propensity score-matched cohort","volume":"37","author":"Dibble","year":"2022","journal-title":"J Neurosurg"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"S26","DOI":"10.1097\/01.BRS.0000076895.52418.5E","article-title":"Minimally invasive lumbar fusion","volume":"28","author":"Foley","year":"2003","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"229","DOI":"10.1186\/s13018-019-1266-y","article-title":"Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: Literature review and meta-analysis","volume":"14","author":"Hammad","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Orthop Surg Res"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"343","DOI":"10.1055\/s-2008-1051624","article-title":"A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: Dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author\u2019s transl)","volume":"120","author":"Harms","year":"1982","journal-title":"Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1557","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2009.1451","article-title":"Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy","volume":"302","author":"Hu","year":"2009","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"95","DOI":"10.4184\/jkss.2017.24.2.95","article-title":"Can unilateral minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) result in sufficient reduction in spondylolisthesis?: A comparison with open TLIF and bilateral MIS TLIF","volume":"24","author":"Koo","year":"2017","journal-title":"J Korean Soc Spine Surg"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"903","DOI":"10.1177\/2192568220932879","article-title":"Clinical and radiographic comparison between open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral facetectomies","volume":"11","author":"Le","year":"2021","journal-title":"Global Spine J"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2265","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-012-2281-4","article-title":"Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"21","author":"Lee","year":"2012","journal-title":"Eur Spine J"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"419","DOI":"10.3171\/2020.12.SPINE201665","article-title":"Does transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion induce lordosis or kyphosis? Radiographic evaluation with a minimum 2-year follow-up","volume":"35","author":"Liu","year":"2021","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"854","DOI":"10.14245\/ns.2142248.124","article-title":"Outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using unilateral versus bilateral interbody cages","volume":"18","author":"Lynch","year":"2021","journal-title":"Neurospine"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"76","DOI":"10.4055\/jkoa.2009.44.1.76","article-title":"Minimal invasive unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by sublaminar decompression-comparison to bilateral approach-","volume":"44","author":"Min","year":"2009","journal-title":"J Korean Orthop Assoc"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"429","DOI":"10.4055\/jkoa.2009.44.4.429","article-title":"Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with low grade spondylolisthesis-comparison of the unilateral and bilateral approaches","volume":"44","author":"Min","year":"2009","journal-title":"J Korean Orthop Assoc"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"453","DOI":"10.4184\/asj.2014.8.4.453","article-title":"Usefulness of contralateral indirect decompression through minimally invasive unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion","volume":"8","author":"Min","year":"2014","journal-title":"Asian Spine J"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-18","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E16","DOI":"10.3171\/FOC\/2008\/25\/8\/E16","article-title":"Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with reduction of spondylolisthesis: Technique and outcomes after a minimum of 2 years\u2019 follow-up","volume":"25","author":"Park","year":"2008","journal-title":"Neurosurg Focus"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-19","first-page":"e54433","article-title":"Comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open procedures in specific general surgical interventions","volume":"16","author":"Patil","year":"2024","journal-title":"Cureus"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-20","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"447","DOI":"10.3171\/2019.2.SPINE18942","article-title":"Biomechanical implications of unilateral facetectomy, unilateral facetectomy plus partial contralateral facetectomy, and complete bilateral facetectomy in minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion","volume":"31","author":"Snyder","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Neurosurg Spine"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"E1039","DOI":"10.1097\/BRS.0000000000001535","article-title":"Comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients receiving single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with removal of unilateral or bilateral facet joints","volume":"41","author":"Tye","year":"2016","journal-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-22","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"452","DOI":"10.1016\/B978-0-443-06616-0.50044-4","article-title":"Posterior lumbar interbody fusion","volume-title":"Spine Surgery","author":"Wiseman","year":"2005","edition":"3rd ed"},{"key":"10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025\/ref-23","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"489","DOI":"10.1001\/jamasurg.2014.4052","article-title":"Hospital cost implications of increased use of minimally invasive surgery","volume":"150","author":"Xu","year":"2015","journal-title":"JAMA Surg"}],"container-title":["Surgical Neurology International"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/surgicalneurologyint.com\/is-there-a-difference-in-unilateral-versus-bilateral-facetectomy-in-an-open-or-minimally-invasive-surgery-transforaminal-lumbar-interbody-fusion-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis\/","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/surgicalneurologyint.com\/surgicalint-articles\/is-there-a-difference-in-unilateral-versus-bilateral-facetectomy-in-an-open-or-minimally-invasive-surgery-transforaminal-lumbar-interbody-fusion-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis\/","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,20]],"date-time":"2026-02-20T06:53:17Z","timestamp":1771570397000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/surgicalneurologyint.com\/surgicalint-articles\/is-there-a-difference-in-unilateral-versus-bilateral-facetectomy-in-an-open-or-minimally-invasive-surgery-transforaminal-lumbar-interbody-fusion-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis\/"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,20]]},"references-count":23,"alternative-id":["10.25259\/SNI_1024_2025"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.25259\/sni_1024_2025","relation":{},"ISSN":["2152-7806","2229-5097"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2152-7806","type":"electronic"},{"value":"2229-5097","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,20]]},"article-number":"110"}}