Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part II. No clinical benefit for asymptomatic, initially degenerated adjacent segments after 6 years follow-up

A Retrospective Observational Study to Evaluate Adjacent Segmental Degenerative Change with the Dynesys-Transition-Optima Instrumentation System

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the impact of hybrid dynamic stabilization using the Dynesys-Transition-Optima (DTO) system on adjacent segment disease (ASD) in lumbar spinal stenosis patients with spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2020, 115 patients underwent DTO stabilization at a single center by a single neurosurgeon. After exclusions for lack of specific stabilization and incomplete data, 31 patients were analyzed. Follow-up was conducted at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively, assessing disc height, listhesis distance, and angular motion changes at L2-L3, L3-L4, and L5-S1.

RESULTS

L3-L4 segment (the index level), demonstrated a delayed increase in listhesis distance, contrasting with earlier changes in other segments. At two years, L3-L4 exhibited less increase in listhesis distance and less disc height reduction compared to L2-L3 and L5-S1. Notably, the L3-L4 segment showed a significant reduction in angular motion change over two years.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, while ASD was not significantly prevented, the study indicates minor and delayed degeneration at the index level. The L3-L4 segment experienced reduced angular change in motion, suggesting a potential benefit of DTO in stabilizing this specific segment.

Dynamic Rod Constructs as the Preventive Strategy against Adjacent Segment Disease in Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Disorders: A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study

Objectives

Adjacent segment degeneration (ASDe) and adjacent segment disease (ASDi) are potential long-term complications after lumbar fusion with rigid instrumentation. Dynamic fixation techniques (Topping-off) adjacent to the fused segments have been developed to curtail the risk of ASDe and ASDi. The current study sought to investigate whether the addition of dynamic rod constructs (DRC) in patients with preoperative degeneration in the adjacent disc was effective in reducing the risk of ASDi.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on clinical data of 207 patients with degenerative lumbar disorders (DLD) from January 2012 to January 2019, who underwent posterior transpedicular lumbar fusion (without Topping-off, NoT/O), and posterior dynamic instrumentation with DRC. Clinical and radiological outcomes were evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and lumbar radiographs one, three, and 12 months postoperatively and annually. ASDe was defined as disc height collapse > 20% and disc wedging > 5. Patients with confirmed ASDe and aggravation of ODI > 20 or VAS score > 5 at final follow-up were diagnosed as ASDi. The Kaplan-Meier hazard method was used to estimate the cumulative probability of ASDi within 63 months of surgery.

Results

Over three years of follow-up, 65 patients in the NoT/O (59.6%) and 52 cases (53.1%) in the DRC groups met the diagnostic criteria for ASDe. Furthermore, 27 (24.8%) patients in the NoT/O group showed ASDi during the follow-up, compared to 14 (14.3%) cases in the DRC group (P=0.059). Revision surgery was performed on 19 individuals in the NoT/O and 8 cases in the DRC groups (P=0.048). The Cox regression model identified a significantly decreased risk of ASDi if DRC was used (Hazard ratio: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.13-0.6).

Conclusion

Dynamic fixation adjacent to the fused segment is an effective strategy for preventing ASDi in carefully selected individuals with preoperative degenerative changes at the adjacent level.

Comparison of long-term outcomes of spinal fusion surgeries supplemented with "topping-off" implants in lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background Context

Spinal fusion surgery is a common treatment for lumbar degenerative diseases and has been associated with the long-term complication of adjacent segment disease (ASD). In recent years, the "topping-off" technique has emerged as a new surgical method, combining spinal fusion with a hybrid stabilization device (HSD) or interspinous process device (IPD) proximal to the fused vertebrae.

Methods

A literature search using the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases identified eligible studies comparing topping-off implant(s) with spinal fusion surgery for lumbar degenerative diseases. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for retrospective studies. Each outcome was analyzed using the statistical Confidence in NMA (CINeMA) 1.9.0 software.

Results

17 RCTs and retrospective studies that included 1255 participants and five interventions were identified. The topping-off implants device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM; OR = 0.235, p < 0.001), Dynesys (OR = 0.413, p < 0.001), and Coflex (OR = 0.417, p < 0.01) significantly lowered the incidence of radiographic adjacent segment degeneration (RASDeg) compared with spinal fusion surgery alone. Spinal fusion supplemented with DIAM significantly reduced the incidence of clinical adjacent segment disease (CASD) (OR = 0.358, p = 0.032).

Conclusions

Spinal fusion supplemented with DIAM substantially reduced the incidence of radiographic and clinical adjacent segment disease. No significant difference was observed between the treatment comparators for reoperation due to ASD and back pain relief score.

What can we learn from long-term studies on chronic low back pain? A scoping review

PURPOSE

A scoping review was conducted with the objective to identify and map the available evidence from long-term studies on chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP), to examine how these studies are conducted, and to address potential knowledge gaps.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to march 2021, not restricted by date or language. Experimental and observational study types were included. Inclusion criteria were: participants between 18 and 65 years old with non-specific sub-acute or chronic LBP, minimum average follow-up of > 2 years, and studies had to report at least one of the following outcome measures: disability, quality of life, work participation, or health care utilization. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment. Data were extracted, tabulated, and reported thematically.

RESULTS

Ninety studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies examined invasive treatments (72%), conservative (21%), or a comparison of both (7%). No natural cohorts were included. Methodological quality was weak (16% of studies), moderate (63%), or strong (21%) and generally improved after 2010. Disability (92%) and pain (86%) outcomes were most commonly reported, followed by work (25%), quality of life (15%), and health care utilization (4%). Most studies reported significant improvement at long-term follow-up (median 51 months, range 26 months-18 years). Only 10 (11%) studies took more than one measurement > 2 year after baseline.

CONCLUSION

Patients with persistent non-specific LBP seem to experience improvement in pain, disability and quality of life years after seeking treatment. However, it remains unclear what factors might have influenced these improvements, and whether they are treatment-related. Studies varied greatly in design, patient population, and methods of data collection. There is still little insight into the long-term natural course of LBP. Additionally, few studies perform repeated measurements during long-term follow-up or report on patient-centered outcomes other than pain or disability.

Surgical risk factors associated with the development of adjacent segment pathology in the lumbar spine

Adjacent segment pathology (ASP) is a major cause of disability, and the recognition of the surgical risk factors associated with the development of this condition is essential for its prevention.

Different surgical approaches, from decompression without fusion to non-instrumented and instrumented fusion, have distinct contributions to the development of ASP.

Although motion-preservation procedures could reduce the prevalence of ASP, these are also associated with a higher percentage of complications.

Several risk factors associated with previous surgery, namely the chosen surgical approach and anatomical dissection, the choice of interbody fusion, the increment and length of the fusion, and the restoration of sagittal alignment, may influence the development of ASP.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:966-972. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210050

Lumbar Stabilization with DSS-HPS® System: Radiological Outcomes and Correlation with Adjacent Segment Degeneration

Arthrodesis has always been considered the main treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Adjacent segment degeneration is one of the major topics related to fusion surgery. Non-fusion surgery may prevent this because of the protective effect of persisting segmental motion. The aims of the study were (1) to describe the radiological outcomes in the adjacent vertebral segment after lumbar stabilization with DSS-HPS^® system and (2) to verify the hypothesis that this system prevents the degeneration of the adjacent segment. This is a retrospective monocentric analysis of twenty-seven patients affected by degenerative lumbar disease underwent spinal hybrid stabilization with the DSS-HPS^® system between January 2016 and January 2019. All patients completed 1-year radiological follow-up. Preoperative X-rays and magnetic resonance images, as well as postoperative radiographs at 1, 6 and 12 months, were evaluated by one single observer. Pre- and post-operative anterior and posterior disc height at the dynamic (DL) and adjacent level (AL) were measured; segmental angle (SA) of the dynamized level were measured. There was a statistically significant decrease of both anterior (p = 0.0003 for the DL, p = 0.036 for the AL) and posterior disc height (p = 0.00000 for the DL, p = 0.00032 for the AL); there were a statistically significant variations of the segmental angle (p = 0.00000). Eleven cases (40.7%) of radiological progression of disc degeneration were found. The DSS-HPS^® system does not seem to reduce progression of lumbar disc degeneration in a radiologic evaluation, both in the dynamized and adjacent level.

Dynamic Stabilization Surgery in Patients with Spinal Stenosis: Long-term Outcomes and the Future

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to analyze the long-term results for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) treated with dynamic stabilization (DS) and to consider how we can improve the results.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Few studies have reported long-term outcomes of DS surgery for LSS with or without spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

A single-center, single-surgeon consecutive series of LSS patients who underwent DS surgery with at least 5 years of follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Twenty-seven patients were included in the LSS group and 38 patients in the spondylolisthesis group. Patient characteristics, operative data, radiographic parameters, clinical outcomes, and complications were analyzed at baseline and follow-up.

RESULTS

In the LSS group, all radiographic parameters (e.g., disc height, segmental lordosis, segmental range of motion [ROM] at the index level and proximal adjacent level, global lordosis, and global ROM) were maintained well until the last follow-up. In the spondylolisthesis group, global lordosis decreased from 36.5° ± 8.2° to 32.6° ± 6.0° at the last follow-up (P = 0.039), and global ROM decreased from 22.1° ± 6.9° to 18.8° ± 7.1° at the last follow-up (P = 0.012). In both groups, back pain, leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index scores showed significant and sustained improvements. Screw loosening occurred in three patients (11.1%) in the LSS group and five patients (13.2%) in the spondylolisthesis group. Symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) occurred in two patients (7.4%) in the LSS group and three patients (7.9%) in the spondylolisthesis group.

CONCLUSION

Decompression and DS surgery for LSS with or without spondylolisthesis showed favorable long-term surgical outcomes with an acceptable rate of complications and ASD. However, an improved physiological DS system should be developed.Level of Evidence: 4.

Dynamic Fixation Techniques for the Prevention of Adjacent Segment Disease: A Retrospective Controlled Study

Study Design

Retrospective, controlled study.

Purpose

Dynamic fixation (topping-off technique) adjacent to a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) level was developed to reduce the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASDi). This study was designed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between patients who underwent circumferential lumbar fusion (CLF) without the topping-off technique, CLF with dynamic rod constructs (DRC), and CLF with interspinous device (ISD).

Overview of Literature

Lumbar fusion can result in the re-distribution of stress, increased mobility, and increased intradiscal pressure at adjacent levels, ultimately leading to adjacent segment degeneration (ASDe) and ASDi. Dynamic fixation techniques (topping-off techniques) adjacent to vertebral fusion have been developed to reduce the risk of ASDe and ASDi because they provide a transitional zone between a caudal rigid fused segment and cephalad-mobile unfused levels.

Methods

A single-center, retrospective, controlled study was designed, including all patients who underwent CLF due to degenerative lumbar spinal disease in Hospital Clinic of Barcelona between 2012 and 2018. Three groups of patients were evaluated as per the type of topping-off technique used: CLF alone group, DRC group, and ISD group. Clinical and radiological outcomes were evaluated.

Results

A total of 117 patients were enrolled in the study. Sixty patients (51.3%) underwent CLF without dynamic stabilization, 24 (20.5%) were treated with DRC as topping-off technique, and 33 (28.5%) were treated with an ISD. A total of 12 patients (20.0%) in the CLF alone group showed ASDi at the final follow-up, compared to 1 (4.2%) in the DRC group (p=0.097) and 2 (6.1%) in the ISD group (p=0.127). The Cox regression model identified a significantly decreased risk of ASDi when a topping-off technique (DRC or ISD) was used (hazard ratio, 0.154; 95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.77).

Conclusions

Dynamic fixation adjacent to CLF was a safe and efficient procedure associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with lumbar spine degenerative disease.

Dynamic Stabilization Adjacent to Fusion versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis

This study evaluated differences in outcome variables between dynamic stabilization adjacent to fusion (DATF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane was performed. The variables of interest included clinical adjacent segment pathologies (CASPs), radiological adjacent segment pathologies (RASPs), lumbar lordosis (LL), visual analogue scale (VAS) of back (VAS-B) and leg (VAS-L), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, duration of surgery (DS), estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, and reoperation rate. Nine articles identified as meeting all of the inclusion criteria. DATF was better than PLIF in proximal RASP, CASP, and ODI during 3 months follow-up, VAS-L. However, no significant difference between DATF and PLIF was found in distal RASP, LL, JOA score, VAS-B, ODI after 3 months follow-up, complication rates, and reoperation rate. These further confirmed that DATF could decrease the proximal ASP both symptomatically and radiographically as compared to fusion group; however, the influence of DATF on functional outcome was similar with PLIF. The differences between hybrid surgery and topping-off technique were located in DS and EBL in comparison with PLIF. Our study confirmed that DATF could decrease the proximal ASP both symptomatically and radiographically as compared to the fusion group; however, the influence of DATF on functional outcome was similar with PLIF. The difference between hybrid surgery and topping-off technique was not significant in treatment outcomes.

Topping-off technique for stabilization of lumbar degenerative instabilities in 322 patients

OBJECTIVE

Semi-rigid instrumentation (SRI) was introduced to take advantage of the concept of load sharing in surgery for spinal stabilization. The authors investigated a topping-off technique in which interbody fusion is not performed in the uppermost motion segment, thus creating a smooth transition from stabilized to free motion segments. SRI using the topping-off technique also reduces the motion of the adjacent segments, which may reduce the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD), a frequently observed sequela of instrumentation and fusion, but this technique may also increase the possibility of screw loosening (SL). In the present study the authors aimed to systematically evaluate reoperation rates, clinical outcomes, and potential risk factors and incidences of ASD and SL for this novel approach.

METHODS

The authors collected data for the first 322 patients enrolled at their institution from 2009 to 2015 who underwent surgery performed using the topping-off technique. Reoperation rates, patient satisfaction, and other outcome measures were evaluated. All patients underwent pedicle screw-based semi-rigid stabilization of the lumbar spine with a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rod system.

RESULTS

Implantation of PEEK rods during revision surgery was performed in 59.9% of patients. A median of 3 motion segments (range 1-5 segments) were included and a median of 2 motion segments (range 0-4 segments) were fused. A total of 89.4% of patients underwent fusion, 73.3% by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), 18.4% by anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), 3.1% by extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), 0.3% by oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), and 4.9% by combined approaches in the same surgery. Combined radicular and lumbar pain according to a visual analog scale was reduced from 7.9 ± 1.0 to 4.0 ± 3.1, with 56.2% of patients indicating benefit from surgery. After maximum follow-up (4.3 ± 1.8 years), the reoperation rate was 16.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

The PEEK rod concept including the topping-off principle seems safe, with at least average patient satisfaction in this patient group. Considering the low rate of first-tier surgeries, the presented results seem at least comparable to those of most other series. Follow-up studies are needed to determine long-term outcomes, particularly with respect to ASD, which might be reduced by the presented approach.

Topping-Off Technology versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis

The treatment effects of topping-off technique were still controversial. This study compared all available data on postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes of topping-off technique and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were systematically reviewed. Variations included radiographical adjacent segment disease (RASD), clinical adjacent segment disease (CASD), global lumbar lordosis (GLL), visual analogue scale (VAS) of back (VAS-B) and leg (VAS-L), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), reoperation rates, and complication rates. Sixteen studies, including 1372 cases, were selected for the analysis. Rates of proximal RASD (P=0.0004), distal RASD (P=0.03), postoperative VAS-B (P=0.0001), postoperative VAS-L (P=0.02), EBL (P=0.007), and duration of surgery (P=0.02) were significantly lower in topping-off group than those in PLIF group. Postoperative ODI after 3 years (P=0.04) in the topping-off group was significantly less than that in the PLIF group. There was no significant difference in the rates of CASD (P=0.06), postoperative GLL (P=0.14), postoperative ODI within 3 years (P=0.24), and postoperative JOA (P=0.70) and in reoperation rates (P=0.32) and complication rates (P=0.27) between topping-off group and PLIF. The results confirmed that topping-off technique could effectively prevent ASDs after lumbar internal fixation. However, this effect is effective in preventing RASD. Topping-off technique is more effective in improving the subjective feelings of patients rather than objective motor functions compared with PLIF. With the development of surgical techniques, both topping-off technique and PLIF are safe.

Comparison between topping-off technology and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of chronic low back pain: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The difference between topping-off technique and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in postoperative outcomes is still controversial. The aim of this study is to compare all available data on outcomes of topping-off technique and PLIF in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Articles in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane were reviewed. Parameters included radiographical adjacent segment disease (RASD), clinical adjacent segment disease, range of motion (ROM), global lumbar lordosis (GLL), visual analog scale (VAS), visual analog scale of back, (VAS-B) and visual analog scale leg (VAS-L), Oswestry disability index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), reoperation rates, complication rates.

RESULTS

Rates of proximal RASD (P = .001) and CASD (P = .03), postoperative VAS-B (P = .0001) were significantly lower in topping-off group than that in PLIF group. There was no significant difference in distal RASD (P = .07), postoperative GLL (P = .71), postoperative upper intervertebral ROM (P = .19), postoperative VAS-L (P = .08), DOI (P = .30), postoperative JOA (P = .18), EBL (P = .21) and duration of surgery (P = .49), reoperation rate (P = .16), complication rates (P = .31) between topping-off group and PLIF.

CONCLUSIONS

Topping-off can effectively prevent the adjacent segment disease from progressing after lumbar internal fixation, which is be more effective in proximal segments. Topping-off technique was more effective in improving subjective feelings of patents rather than objective motor functions. However, no significant difference between topping-off technique and PLIF can be found in the rates of complications.

Stress analysis of the implants in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion under static and vibration loadings: a comparison between pedicle screw fixation system with rigid and flexible rods

The use of a pedicle screw fixation system with rods made of more compliant materials has become increasingly popular for spine fusion surgery in recent years. The aim of this study was to compare stress responses of the implants in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) when using flexible and conventional rigid posterior fixation systems. A previously validated intact L1-S1 finite element model was modified to simulate single-level (L4-L5) TLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation using two types of connecting rod (rigid and flexible rods). The von Mises stresses in the implants (including TLIF cage, pedicle screws and rods) for the rigid and flexible fixations were analyzed under static and vibration loadings. The results showed that compared with the rigid fixation, the use of flexible fixation decreased the maximum stress in the pedicle screws, but increased the maximum stress in the cage and the ratio of maximum stress in the rods to the yield stress. It was also found that with decreasing diameter of the flexible rod (i.e. increasing flexibility of the rod), the maximum stress was decreased in the pedicle screws but increased in the cage and the rods. The findings imply that compared with the rigid rod, application of the flexible rod in the pedicle screw fixation system for the TLIF might decrease the breakage risk of pedicle screws but increase the risk of cage subsidence and rod breakage. Moreover, flexibility of the rod in the flexible fixation system should be carefully determined.

Adjacent segment degeneration and topping off. Never stop at the apex!

We investigated if applying the Transition system (Globus Medical Inc., Audubon, PA, USA) as topping off can prevent Adjacent Segment Degeneration (ASD) and if rate of ASD is increased if instrumentation stopped at the apex of the Lumbar Lordosis (LL). We enrolled 99 consecutive patients in a retrospective study who have been operated by instrumented fusion of the lumbar spine. Thirty patients were treated by topping of (Group 1), 69 patients received the standard procedure (Group 2). 18 patients of group 1 (60%) and 38 patients of group 2 (55%) developed ASD. The difference was not significant (P>0.05). In 17 patients (17%) instrumentation stopped at apex of LL. 14/17 patients (82%) developed an ASD. This influence was significant (P<0.05). Instrumented fusion of the lumbar spine should not stop at the apex of the lumbar curve. Topping off by hybrid dynamic fixation does not reduce the rate of ASD.

Long-Term Outcome of Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Background:

Many clinical studies over the past decade have indicated positive outcomes for patients treated with Dynesys dynamic stabilization for lumbar degenerative disease. However, long-term outcomes of Dynesys for lumbar spinal stenosis are rarely reported. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term clinical and radiologic outcomes for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated with Dynesys stabilization.

Methods:

Thirty-eight patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were treated with Dynesys stabilization from July 2008 to March 2010. The minimal duration of follow-up was 72 months. The patients were divided into stenosis and spondylolisthesis groups according to degenerative spondylolisthesis. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS). Radiographic evaluations included range of motion (ROM) and the disc heights of stabilized segments and the upper adjacent segments. We also evaluated the occurrence of radiographic and symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD).

Results:

There were 23 patients in stenosis group and 15 patients in spondylolisthesis group. The ODI scores were significantly improved at the final follow-up evaluation, as compared to the baseline values (16.1 ± 5.7 vs. 57. 2 ± 14.2, t = 61.41, P < 0.01). The VAS scores for back and leg pain were significantly improved from 4.82 ± 0.89 and 4.04 ± 0.82 preoperatively to 0.93 ± 0.61 and 0.54 ± 0.51 postoperatively (t = 6.59, P < 0.01, and t = 5.91, P < 0.01, respectively). There were no differences between the two groups with respect to VAS and ODI scores. The ROM of stabilized segments decreased significantly from 7.8° ± 2.4° to 4.5° ± 1.5° (t = 7.18, P < 0.05), while the upper adjacent segments increased significantly from 8.3° ± 2.4° to 10.4° ± 2.4° (t = 2.87, P = 0.01). The change in disc height of stabilized segments was not significant (11.9 ± 2.1 preoperatively vs. 12.5 ± 1.5 postoperatively, t = 1.43, P = 0.15), whereas the decrease in disc height of the upper adjacent segments was significant (12.5 ± 2.0 preoperatively vs. 11.0 ± 1.7 postoperatively, t = 2.94, P = 0.01). The occurrence of radiographic and symptomatic ASD was 16% (6/38) and 3% (1/38), respectively.

Conclusions:

Decompression and Dynesys stabilization for lumbar stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis showed good long-term clinical and radiographic results. Lumbar stenosis with or without Grade I spondylolisthesis, particularly in patients <60 years of age with mild-to-moderate lumbar disc degeneration, would be one of the main indications for the Dynesys system.

Material failure in dynamic spine implants: are the standardized implant tests before market launch sufficient?

PURPOSE

International Standards Organization (ISO) 12189 and American Society for Testing and Materials F2624 are two standard material specification and test methods for spinal implant devices. The aim of this study was to assess whether the existing and required tests before market launch are sufficient.

METHODS

In three prospective studies, patients were treated due to degenerative disease of the lumbar spine or spondylolisthesis with lumbar interbody fusion and dynamic stabilization of the cranial adjacent level. The CD HORIZON BalanC rod and S⁴ Dynamic rod were implanted in 45 and 11 patients, respectively.

RESULTS

A fatigue fracture of the material of the topping off system has been found in five cases (11%) for the group fitted with the CD HORIZON BalanC rod. In the group using the S⁴ Dynamic rod group, a material failure of the dynamic part was demonstrated in seven patients (64%). All three studies were interrupted due to these results, and a report to the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices was generated.

CONCLUSION

Spinal implants have to be checked by a notified body before market launch. The notified body verifies whether the implants fulfil the requirements of the current standards. These declared studies suggest that the current standards for the testing of load bearing capacity and stand ability of dynamic spine implants might be insufficient. Revised standards depicting sufficient deformation and load pattern have to be developed and counted as a requirement for the market launch of an implant. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Clinical experiences with a PEEK-based dynamic instrumentation device in lumbar spinal surgery: 2 years and no more

Background

Dynamic spine implants were developed to prevent adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and adjacent segment disease (ASDi). Purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes of “topping off” devices following lumbar spinal fusion procedure using a PEEK-based dynamic rod system. Moreover, this study focused on the hypothesis that “topping off” devices can prevent ASD.

Methods

This prospective nonrandomized study included patients with indication for single-level lumbar fusion and radiological signs of ASD without instability. The exclusion criteria were previous lumbar spine surgery and no sign of disc degeneration in the adjacent segment according to magnetic resonance imaging. All patients were treated with single-level lumbar interbody fusion and dynamic stabilization of the cranial adjacent segment. Patients underwent a clinical examination and radiographs preoperatively and at 1 and 2 years after surgery. Analyses were performed on clinical data collected with the German Spine Registry using the core outcome measure index (COMI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain.

Results

A total of 22 patients (6 male and 16 female) with an average age of 57.6 years were included in the study; 20 patients completed the follow-up (FU). The average COMI score was 9.0 preoperatively, 4.2 at the 1-year FU, and 4.7 at the 2-year FU. The average preoperative VAS scores for back and leg pain were 7.7 and 7.1, respectively. At the 1-year FU, the scores were 4.25 for back pain and 2.2 for leg pain, and at the 2-year FU, the scores were 4.7 for back pain and 2.3 for leg pain. At FU, failure of the dynamic topping off implant material was verified in four cases, and ASD of the segment cranial to the topping off was confirmed in three cases.

Conclusions

These results demonstrate significant improvements in clinical outcomes and pain reduction after lumbar spinal fusion with topping off at 2 years after surgery. However, the implant failed due to the high rate of implant failure and the development of ASD in the segment cranial to the dynamic stabilized segment.

The use of the DTO™ hybrid dynamic device: a clinical outcome- and radiological-based prospective clinical trial

Background

The purpose of this study was to assess the radiological and clinical outcome parameters following lumbar hybrid dynamic instrumentation with the focus on the adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and adjacent segment disease (ASDi).

Methods

In this prospective trial all patients presenting with degenerative changes to the lumbar spine have been included. Precondition was a stable adjacent level with/without degenerative alteration. The elected patients underwent a standardised fusion procedure with hybrid instrumentation (DTO™, Zimmer Spine Inc., Denver, USA). Patients’ demographics have been documented and the follow-up visits were conducted after 6 weeks, and then stepwise after 6 up to 48 months. Each follow-up visit included assessment of quality of life and pain using specific questionnaires (COMI, SF-36, ODI) and the radiological evaluation with focus on the adjacent level alterations.

Results

At a mean follow up of 24 months an incidence of ASD with 10.91% and for ASDi with 18.18% has been observed. In 9% a conversion to standardised fusion was needed. There was a high rate of mechanical complication: (1) screw loosening (52.73%), (2) pedicle screw breakage (10.91%), and (3) rod breakage (3.64%) after a follow up of a maximum of 60 months. There were no significant difference of COMI, ODI and SF-36(v2) in comparison to all groups but all 55 patients showed a clinical improvement over the time.

Conclusion

The dynamic hybrid DTO™ device is comparable to the long-term results after standardised fusion procedure, while a high rate of mechanical complication decreased the initial benefit.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at the ClinicalTrials Register (#NCT03404232, 2018/01/18, registered retrospectively).

The Incidence of Adjacent Segment Degeneration after the Use of a Versatile Dynamic Hybrid Stabilization Device in Lumbar Stenosis: Results of a 5-8-Year Follow-up

Study Design

Retrospective study with long-term follow-up.

Purpose

To evaluate the long-term incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and clinical outcomes in a consecutive series of patients who underwent spinal decompression associated with dynamic or hybrid stabilization with a Flex+TM stabilization system (SpineVision, Antony, France) for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Overview of Literature

The incidence of ASD and clinical outcomes following dynamic or hybrid stabilization with the Flex+TM system used for lumbar spinal stenosis have not been well investigated.

Methods

Twenty-one patients with lumbar stenosis and probable post-decompressive spinal instability underwent decompressive laminectomy followed by spinal stabilization using the Flex+TM stabilization system. The indication for a mono-level dynamic stabilization was a preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrating evidence of severe disc disease associated with severe spinal stenosis. The hybrid stabilization (rigid-dynamic) system was used for multilevel laminectomies with associated initial degenerative scoliosis, first-grade spondylolisthesis, or rostral pathology.

Results

The improvement in Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores at follow-up were statistically significant (p<0.0001 and p<0.0001, respectively). At the 5–8-year follow-up, clinical examination, MRI, and X-ray findings showed an ASD complication with pain and disability in one of 21 patients. The clinical outcomes were similar in patients treated with dynamic or hybrid fixation.

Conclusions

Patients treated with laminectomy and Flex+TM stabilization presented a satisfactory clinical outcome after 5–8 years of follow-up, and ASD incidence in our series was 4.76% (one patient out of 21). We are aware that this is a small series, but our long-term follow-up may be sufficient to contribute to the expanding body of literature on the development of symptomatic ASD associated with dynamic or hybrid fixation.

Biomechanical effects of hybrid stabilization on the risk of proximal adjacent-segment degeneration following lumbar spinal fusion using an interspinous device or a pedicle screw–based dynamic fixator

OBJECTIVE

Pedicle screw-rod–based hybrid stabilization (PH) and interspinous device–based hybrid stabilization (IH) have been proposed to prevent adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) and their effectiveness has been reported. However, a comparative study based on sound biomechanical proof has not yet been reported. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical effects of IH and PH on the transition and adjacent segments.

METHODS

A validated finite element model of the normal lumbosacral spine was used. Based on the normal model, a rigid fusion model was immobilized at the L4–5 level by a rigid fixator. The DIAM or NFlex model was added on the L3–4 segment of the fusion model to construct the IH and PH models, respectively. The developed models simulated 4 different loading directions using the hybrid loading protocol.

RESULTS

Compared with the intact case, fusion on L4–5 produced 18.8%, 9.3%, 11.7%, and 13.7% increments in motion at L3–4 under flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, respectively. Additional instrumentation at L3–4 (transition segment) in hybrid models reduced motion changes at this level. The IH model showed 8.4%, −33.9%, 6.9%, and 2.0% change in motion at the segment, whereas the PH model showed −30.4%, −26.7%, −23.0%, and 12.9%. At L2–3 (adjacent segment), the PH model showed 14.3%, 3.4%, 15.0%, and 0.8% of motion increment compared with the motion in the IH model. Both hybrid models showed decreased intradiscal pressure (IDP) at the transition segment compared with the fusion model, but the pressure at L2–3 (adjacent segment) increased in all loading directions except under extension.

CONCLUSIONS

Both IH and PH models limited excessive motion and IDP at the transition segment compared with the fusion model. At the segment adjacent to the transition level, PH induced higher stress than IH model. Such differences may eventually influence the likelihood of ASD.

Posterolateral fusion versus Dynesys dynamic stabilization: Retrospective study at a minimum 5.5years' follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar fusion is one of the most widespread techniques to treat degenerative lumbar pathology. To prevent complications such as non-union or adjacent segment degeneration, dynamic stabilization techniques were developed, but with controversial results. The aim of the present study was to compare long-term radiologic and clinical results between fusion and dynamic stabilization.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective study included patients with recurrent lumbar discal hernia or lumbar canal stenosis managed by posterolateral fusion or by dynamic stabilization associated to neurologic release. Patients were seen in follow-up for radiological and clinical assessment: visual analog pain scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-12 (SF-12), adjacent segment disease (ASD), and intervertebral range of motion (ROM).

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were included: 25 in the fusion group (FG), and 33 in the Dynesys^® group (DG). VAS scores were significantly lower in DG than FG. ODI was 14.6±2.8 in DG, versus 19.4±3.3 in FG (P=0.0001). SF-12 physical subscore was significantly higher in DG. ROM was 4.1±2° in DG, vs. 0.7±0.5° in FG (P=0.001). Radiologic ASD was significantly greater in FG than DG (36% vs. 12.1%; P=0.012), without difference in clinical expression (DG, 1 case; FG, 2 cases).

CONCLUSION

Dynamic stabilization provided clinical and radiological results comparable to those of posterolateral fusion in these indications (although level L5-S1 was not studied).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Pathoanatomic Risk Factors for Instability and Adjacent Segment Disease in Lumbar Spine: How to Use Topping Off?

PURPOSE

The goal of this review is to identify criteria indicating implantation of hybrid system into lumbar spine and to evaluate general benefits of use.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature was performed using current randomized clinical trials, reviews, and meta-analyses. Data sources included relevant literature of human studies identified through searches of Medline Library until May 2015.

RESULTS

Predisposing factors for Adjacent Segment Disease (ASDi) are discussed in literature: laminar horizontalization, insufficiency of fascia thoracolumbalis, facet tropism, and facet sagittalization. Currently there is no evidence for topping off. There are only 12 studies and these have no consistent statements about use of a hybrid system for avoidance of ASDi.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid instrumentation of lumbar spine, either with pedicle-based technique or additional spacer, might possibly prevent ASDi from developing in previously damaged segment adjacent to a fusion. Good clinical data proving effectiveness of this new implant technique is as yet unavailable. Thus, currently one must speak of an unevaluated procedure. Various radiological classifications can assist in making a reliable decision as to whether hybrid instrumentation is an appropriate choice of therapy. Pathoanatomical conditions of facet joints and laminae as well as preservation of sagittal balance must also be considered.

Biomechanical Effects of a Dynamic Topping off Instrumentation in a Long Rigid Pedicle Screw Construct

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical ex vivo study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if topping off instrumentation can reduce the hypermobility in the adjacent segments when compared with the classic rigid spinal instrumentation.

SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND DATA

Long rigid instrumentation might increase the mechanical load in the adjacent segments, the resulting hypermobility, and the risk for adjacent segment disease. Topping off instrumentation intends to reduce the hypermobility at the adjacent level by more evenly distributing segmental motion and, thereby, potentially mitigating adjacent level disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight human spines (Th12-L5) were divided into 2 groups. In the rigid group, a 3-segment metal rod instrumentation (L2-L5) was performed. The hybrid group included a 2-segment metal rod instrumentation (L3-L5) with a dynamic topping off instrumentation (L2-L3). Each specimen was tested consecutively in 3 different configurations: native (N=8), 2-segment rod instrumentation (L3-L5, N=8), 3-segment instrumentation (rigid: N=4, hybrid: N=4). For each configuration the range of motion (ROM) of the whole spine and each level was measured by a motion capture system during 5 cycles of extension-flexion (angle controlled to ±5 degrees, 0.1 Hz frequency, no preload).

RESULTS

In comparison with the intact spine, both the rigid 3-segment instrumentation and the hybrid instrumentation significantly reduced the ROM in the instrumented segments (L2-L5) while increasing the movement in the adjacent segment L1-L2 (P=0.002, η=0.82) and in Th12-L1 (P<0.001, η=0.90). There were no ROM differences between the rigid and hybrid instrumentation in all segments.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing the dynamic topping off did not impart any significant difference in the segmental motion when compared with the rigid instrumentation. Therefore, the current biomechanical study could not show a benefit of using this specific topping off instrumentation to solve the problem of adjacent segment disease.

Could the Topping-Off Technique Be the Preventive Strategy against Adjacent Segment Disease after Pedicle Screw-Based Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Diseases? A Systematic Review

The "topping-off" technique is a new concept applying dynamic or less rigid fixation such as hybrid stabilization device (HSD) or interspinous process device (IPD) for the purpose of avoiding adjacent segment disease (ASD) proximal to the fusion construct. A systematic review of the literature was performed on the effect of topping-off techniques to prevent or decrease the occurrence of ASD after lumbar fusion surgery. We searched through major online databases, PubMed and MEDLINE, using key words related to "topping-off" technique. We reviewed the surgical results of "topping-off" techniques with either HSD or IPD, including the incidence of ASD at two proximal adjacent levels (index and supra-adjacent level) as compared to the fusion alone group. The results showed that the fusion alone group had statistically higher incidence of radiographic (52.6%) and symptomatic (11.6%) ASD at the index level as well as higher incidence (8.1%) of revision surgery. Besides, the HSD (10.5%) and fusion groups (24.7%) had statistically higher incidences of radiographic ASD at supra-adjacent level than the IPD (1%). The findings suggest that the "topping-off" technique may potentially decrease the occurrence of ASD at the proximal motion segments. However, higher quality prospective randomized trials are required prior to wide clinical application.

Hybrid Instrumentation in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Biomechanical Evaluation of Three Different Instrumentation Techniques

STUDY DESIGN

Ex vivo human cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVE

The development or progression of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after spine stabilization and fusion is a major problem in spine surgery. Apart from optimal balancing of the sagittal profile, dynamic instrumentation is often suggested to prevent or impede ASD. Hybrid instrumentation is used to gain stabilization while allowing motion to avoid hypermobility in the adjacent segment. In this biomechanical study, the effects of two different hybrid instrumentations on human cadaver spines were evaluated and compared with a rigid instrumentation.

METHODS

Eighteen human cadaver spines (T11-L5) were subdivided into three groups: rigid, dynamic, and hook comprising six spines each. Clinical parameters and initial mechanical characteristics were consistent among groups. All specimens received rigid fixation from L3-L5 followed by application of a free bending load of extension and flexion. The range of motion (ROM) for every segment was evaluated. For the rigid group, further rigid fixation from L1-L5 was applied. A dynamic Elaspine system (Spinelab AG, Winterthur, Switzerland) was applied from L1 to L3 for the dynamic group, and the hook group was instrumented with additional laminar hooks at L1-L3. ROM was then evaluated again.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in ROM among the three instrumentation techniques.

CONCLUSION

Based on this data, the intended advantage of a hybrid or dynamic instrumentation might not be achieved.

[Hybrid stabilization technique with spinal fusion and interlaminar device to reduce the length of fusion and to protect symptomatic adjacent segments : Clinical long-term follow-up]

INTRODUCTION

Determination of the extent of spinal fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases is often difficult due to minor pathologies in the adjacent segment. Although surgical intervention is required, fusion seems to be an overtreatment. Decompression alone may be not enough as this segment is affected by multiple factors such as destabilization, low grade degeneration and an unfavorable biomechanical transition next to a rigid construct. An alternative surgical treatment is a hybrid construct, consisting of fusion and implantation of an interlaminar stabilization device at the adjacent level. The aim of this study was to compare long-term clinical outcome after lumbar fusion with a hybrid construct including an interlaminar stabilization device as "topping-off".

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 25 lumbar spinal fusions from 2003 to 2010 with additional interlaminar stabilization device was performed. Through a matched case controlled procedure 25 congruent patients who received lumbar spinal fusion in one or two levels were included as a control group. At an average follow-up of 43 months pre- and postoperative pain, ODI, SF-36 as well as clinical parameters, such as leg and back pain, walking distance and patient satisfaction were recorded.

RESULTS

Pain relief, ODI improvement and patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the hybrid group compared to the control group. SF-36 scores improved in both groups but was higher in the hybrid group, although without significance. Evaluation of walking distance showed no significant differences.

DISCUSSION

Many outcome parameters present significantly better long-term results in the hybrid group compared to sole spinal fusion. Therefore, in cases with a clear indication for lumbar spinal fusion with the need for decompression at the adjacent level due to spinal stenosis or moderate spondylarthrosis, support of this segment with an interlaminar stabilization device demonstrates a reasonable treatment option with good clinical outcome. Also, the length of the fusion construct can be reduced allowing for a softer and more harmonic transition.

Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion compared with motion-preservation procedures: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of motion-preservation procedures to prevent the adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) or adjacent segment disease (ASDis) compared with fusion in lumbar spine.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched and a meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials and well designed prospective or retrospective comparative cohort studies assessing the lumbar fusion and motion-preservation procedures. We compared the ASDeg and ASDis rate, reoperation rate, operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) and oswestry disability index (ODI) improvement of the two procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies consisting of 1474 patients were included in this study. The meta-analysis indicated that the prevalence of ASDeg, ASDis and reoperation rate on the adjacent level were lower in motion-preservation procedures group than in the fusion group (P = 0.001; P = 0.0004; P < 0.0001). Moreover, shorter length of hospital stay was found in motion-preservation procedures group (P < 0.0001). No difference was found in terms of operation time (P = 0.57), blood loss (P = 0.27), VAS (P = 0.76) and ODI improvement (P = 0.71) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present evidences indicated that the motion-preservation procedures had an advantage on reducing the prevalence of ASDeg, ASDis and the reoperation rate due to the adjacent segment degeneration compared with the lumbar fusion. And the clinical outcomes of the two procedures are similar.

Posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization instead of arthrodesis for symptomatic adjacent-segment degenerative stenosis: description of a novel technique

OBJECTIVE The development of symptomatic adjacent-segment disease (ASD) is a well-recognized consequence of lumbar fusion surgery. Extension of a fusion to a diseased segment may only lead to subsequent adjacent-segment degeneration. The authors report the use of a novel technique that uses dynamic stabilization instead of arthrodesis for the surgical treatment of symptomatic ASD following a prior lumbar instrumented fusion. METHODS A cohort of 28 consecutive patients was evaluated who developed symptomatic stenosis immediately adjacent to a previous lumbar instrumented fusion. All patients had symptoms of neurogenic claudication refractory to nonsurgical treatment and were surgically treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization instead of extending the fusion construct using a posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization system. Preoperative symptoms, visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and perioperative complications were recorded. Clinical outcome was gauged by comparing VAS scores prior to surgery and at the time of last follow-up. RESULTS The mean follow-up duration was 52 months (range 17-94 months). The mean interval from the time of primary fusion surgery to the dynamic stabilization surgery was 40 months (range 10-96 months). The mean patient age was 51 years (range 29-76 years). There were 19 (68%) men and 9 (32%) women. Twenty-three patients (82%) presented with low-back pain at time of surgery, whereas 24 patients (86%) presented with lower-extremity symptoms only. Twenty-four patients (86%) underwent operations that were performed using single-level dynamic stabilization, 3 patients (11%) were treated at 2 levels, and 1 patient underwent 3-level decompression and dynamic stabilization. The most commonly affected and treated level (46%) was L3-4. The mean preoperative VAS pain score was 8, whereas the mean postoperative score was 3. No patient required surgery for symptomatic degeneration rostral to the level of dynamic stabilization during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS The use of posterior lumbar dynamic stabilization may offer a valid and safe option for the management of patients who develop ASD rostral to a previously instrumented arthrodesis. The technique may serve as an alternative to multilevel arthrodesis in this patient population. By implanting a dynamic stabilization device instead of an extension of a rigid construct, this might translate into a reduction in the development of yet another level of ASD.

Experimental Evaluation of the Developmental Mechanism Underlying Fractures at the Adjacent Segment

BACKGROUND

Compression fractures at adjacent mobile segments have been reported as adjacent segment disease under trauma in several studies. In this study, the occurrence of fractures at the adjacent segment was evaluated experimentally under trauma.

METHODS

Static testing of different fixation systems was performed to show their biomechanical performances. The ovine vertebrae fixed with rigid, dynamic, and semirigid systems were used as test samples. The stiffness values of the systems were obtained by testing the vertebrectomy models under compression bending, lateral bending, and torsion tests. In addition, their effects on the adjacent segments were experimentally evaluated within a drop mechanism. A free-fall drop mechanism was designed and manufactured. Next, 3.5-kg, 5-kg, and 7-kg weights were released from 1 m above the test samples to generate compression fractures. The occurrence of compression fractures was observed with the use of radiograph of test samples, which were obtained before and after the drop test.

RESULTS

Dynamic and semirigid systems have advantages compared with rigid systems as the result of their lower stiffness values. Radiographs showed that epiphysis fractures occurred at fixed and adjacent mobile segments, which were fixed with semirigid fixation. In addition, dynamic fixation well preserved the fixed and adjacent mobile segments under trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The dynamic system with a polyetheretherketone rod can better preserve both adjacent and fixed segments. However, because of the cantilever beam effect, the semirigid system exhibits a great disadvantage.

Hybrid Surgery Combined with Dynamic Stabilization System and Fusion for the Multilevel Degenerative Disease of the Lumbosacral Spine

BACKGROUND

As motion-preserving technique has been developed, the concept of hybrid surgery involves simultaneous application of two different kinds of devices, dynamic stabilization system and fusion technique. In the present study, the application of hybrid surgery for lumbosacral degenerative disease involving two-segments and its long-term outcome were investigated.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with hybrid surgery (Hybrid group) and 10 patients with two-segment fusion (Fusion group) were retrospectively compared.

RESULTS

Preoperative grade for disc degeneration was not different between the two groups, and the most common operated segment had the most degenerated disc grade in both groups; L4-5 and L5-S1 in the Hybrid group, and L3-4 and L4-5 in Fusion group. Over 48 months of follow-up, lumbar lordosis and range of motion (ROM) at the T12-S1 global segment were preserved in the Hybrid group, and the segmental ROM at the dynamic stabilized segment maintained at final follow-up. The Fusion group had a significantly decreased global ROM and a decreased segmental ROM with larger angles compared to the Hybrid group. Defining a 2-mm decrease in posterior disc height (PDH) as radiologic adjacent segment pathology (ASP), these changes were observed in 6 and 7 patients in the Hybrid and Fusion group, respectively. However, the last PDH at the above adjacent segment had statistically higher value in Hybrid group. Pain score for back and legs was much reduced in both groups. Functional outcome measured by Oswestry disability index (ODI), however, had better improvement in Hybrid group.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid surgery, combined dynamic stabilization system and fusion, can be effective surgical treatment for multilevel degenerative lumbosacral spinal disease, maintaining lumbar motion and delaying disc degeneration.

In Vitro Comparison of Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium Constructs in the Lumbar Spine

Introduction. Pedicle based posterior dynamic stabilization systems aim to stabilize the pathologic spine while also allowing sufficient motion to mitigate adjacent level effects. Two flexible constructs that have been proposed to act in such a manner, the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and PEEK rod, have yet to be directly compared in vitro to a rigid Titanium rod. Methods. Human lumbar specimens were tested in flexion extension, lateral bending, and axial torsion to evaluate the following conditions at L4-L5: Intact, Dynesys, PEEK rod, Titanium rod, and Destabilized. Intervertebral range of motion, interpedicular travel, and interpedicular displacement metrics were evaluated from 3rd-cycle data using an optoelectric tracking system. Results. Statistically significant decreases in ROM compared to Intact and Destabilized conditions were detected for the instrumented conditions during flexion extension and lateral bending. AT ROM was significantly less than Destabilized but not the Intact condition. Similar trends were found for interpedicular displacement in all modes of loading; however, interpedicular travel trends were less consistent. More importantly, no metrics under any mode of loading revealed significant differences between Dynesys, PEEK, and Titanium. Conclusion. The results of this study support previous findings that Dynesys and PEEK constructs behave similarly to a Titanium rod in vitro.

Quality and Quantity of Published Studies Evaluating Lumbar Fusion during the Past 10 Years: A Systematic Review

Study Design Systematic review. Clinical Questions (1) Has the proportion and number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as an indicator of quality of evidence regarding lumbar fusion increased over the past 10 years? (2) Is there a difference in the proportion of RCTs among the four primary fusion diagnoses (degenerative disk disease, spondylolisthesis, deformity, and adjacent segment disease) over the past 10 years? (3) Is there a difference in the type and quality of clinical outcomes measures reported among RCTs over time? (4) Is there a difference in the type and quality of adverse events measures reported among RCTs over time? (5) Are there changes in fusion surgical approach and techniques over time by diagnosis over the past 10 years? Methods Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2013, to identify lumbar fusion RCTs. Fusion studies designed specifically to evaluate recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 or other bone substitutes, revision surgery studies, nonrandomized comparison studies, case reports, case series, and cost-effectiveness studies were excluded. Results Forty-two RCTs between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013, met the inclusion criteria and form the basis for this report. There were 35 RCTs identified evaluating patients diagnosed with degenerative disk disease, 4 RCTs evaluating patients diagnosed with degenerative spondylolisthesis, and 3 RCTs evaluating patients with a combination of degenerative disk disease and degenerative spondylolisthesis. No RCTs were identified evaluating patients with deformity or adjacent segment disease. Conclusions This structured review demonstrates that there has been an increase in the available clinical database of RCTs using patient-reported outcomes evaluating the benefit of lumbar spinal fusion for the diagnoses of degenerative disk disease and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Gaps remain in the standardization of reportage of adverse events in such trials, as well as uniformity of surgical approaches used. Finally, continued efforts to develop higher-quality data for other surgical indications for lumbar fusion, most notably in the presence of adult spinal deformity and revision of prior surgical fusions, appear warranted.

How does free rod-sliding affect the posterior instrumentation for a dynamic stabilization using a bovine calf model?

STUDY DESIGN

A biomechanical cadaveric study in lumbar calf spine.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of the effects of selected degrees of freedom (df) on the dynamic stabilization of the spine in terms of segmental range of motion (RoM), center of rotation (CoR), and implant loadings.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

For dorsal stabilization, rigid implant systems are becoming increasingly complemented by numerous dynamic systems based on pedicle screws and varying df. However, it is still unclear which df is most suitable to accomplish a physiologically related dynamic stabilization, and which loadings are induced to the implants. Human and calf specimens are reported to show certain similarities in their biomechanics. Young healthy calf specimens are not degenerated and show less interindividual differences than elderly human specimens. However, the existing differences between species limit the conclusions in a preclinical setting.

METHODS

Six calf specimens from level L3-L4 were analyzed in flexion and extension with a 6-df robotic spine simulator. A clinical functional radiological examination tool was used and parameters such as RoM, CoR, and implant loadings were determined for 6 configurations: (1) intact, (2) defect, (3) rigid fixation, (4) free craniocaudal (CC) rod-sliding, (5) free polyaxiality, and (6) combined free rod-sliding and free polyaxiality. The location of the CoR was determined relative to vertebral body dimensions. A CoR repositioning was defined as sufficient when its median differed less than 5% of the vertebral body dimensions.

RESULTS

Free rod-sliding in the CC direction restored the CoR from the defect back to the intact condition. The RoM could be significantly reduced to approximately 1/2 of the intact condition. Compared with the rigid condition, the implant bending moments increased from 0.3/-0.8 Nm (flexion/extension) to 1.3/-1.2 Nm for the free CC rod-sliding condition.

CONCLUSION

Free CC rod-sliding restores the intact conditions of the tested kinematic parameters most suitably and at the same time reduces the RoM. Stabilization toward the intact condition could decrease the risk of stress shielding and the progress of segment degeneration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Evaluation of efficacy of a new hybrid fusion device: a randomized, two-centre controlled trial

Background

The 360° fusion of lumbar segments is a common and well-researched therapy to treat various diseases of the spine. But it changes the biomechanics of the spine and may cause adjacent segment disease (ASD). Among the many techniques developed to avoid this complication, one appears promising. It combines a rigid fusion with a flexible pedicle screw system (hybrid instrumentation, “topping off”). However, its clinical significance is still uncertain due to the lack of conclusive data.

Methods/Design

The study is a randomized, therapy-controlled, two-centre trial conducted in a clinical setting at two university hospitals. If they meet the criteria, outpatients presenting with degenerative disc disease, facet joint arthrosis or spondylolisthesis will be included in the study and randomized into two groups: a control group undergoing conventional fusion surgery (PLIF - posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion), and an intervention group undergoing fusion surgery using a new flexible pedicle screw system (PLIF + “topping off”), which was brought on the market in 2013.

Follow-up examination will take place immediately after surgery, after 6 weeks and after 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. An ongoing assessment will be performed every year.

Outcome measurements will include quality of life and pain assessments using validated questionnaires (ODI - Ostwestry Disability Index, SF-36™ - Short Form Health Survey 36, COMI - Core Outcome Measure Index). In addition, clinical and radiologic ASD, sagittal balance parameters and duration of work disability will be assessed. Inpatient and 6-month mortality, surgery-related data (e.g., intraoperative complications, blood loss, length of incision, surgical duration), postoperative complications (e.g. implant failure), adverse events, and serious adverse events will be monitored and documented throughout the study.

Discussion

New hybrid “topping off” systems might improve the outcome of lumbar spine fusion. But to date, there is a serious lack of and a great need of convincing data on safety or efficacy, including benefits and harms to the patients, of these systems. Health care providers are particularly interested in such data as these implants are much more expensive than conventional implants. In such a case, randomized clinical trials are the best way to evaluate benefits and risks.

Trial registration

NCT01852526

Kinematic and mechanical comparisons of lumbar hybrid fixation using Dynesys and Cosmic systems

STUDY DESIGN

The biomechanical effects of Dynesys and Cosmic fixators on transition and adjacent segments were evaluated using the finite-element method.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the load-transferring mechanisms of 2 dynamic fixators and the fixator-induced effects on the junctional problem of the adjacent segments.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The mobility and flexibility of Dynesys screw-spacer and Cosmic screw-hinge joints preserve motion and share loads for the transition segment. However, the differences in tissue responses and fixator mechanisms among these 2 fixators have not been investigated extensively.

METHODS

A lumbosacral model from L1 to S1 levels was developed and subjected to muscular contraction, ligamentous interconnection, compressive force, and trunk moment. A static fixator was instrumented at the moderately degenerative L4-L5 segment to serve as a comparison baseline. Subsequently, the 2 fixators were instrumented at the mildly degenerative L3-L4 segment. The tissue responses of the adjacent segments and the load transmission at the screw-spacer and bone-screw interfaces were compared.

RESULTS

Both systems show the ability to protect the transition segment but deteriorate the adjacent segments. The screw-hinge joint and the stiffer rod of the Cosmic system significantly constrained the motion pattern of the transition segment. Comparatively, the Dynesys screw-spacer interfaces make contact with and depart from each other during motion; thus providing higher mobility to the transition segment. However, the highly stressed distribution at the Cosmic bone-screw causes the screw and hinge prone to pullout and fatigue failures.

CONCLUSION

Cosmic fixation can better protect the disc and facet joint of the transition segment than can the Dynesys. However, the screw-hinge joint strictly constrains intersegmental motion and deteriorates the junctional problem. The Cosmic system can be chosen to treat more severely degenerative transition segments. With higher flexibility, the Dynesys system is recommended for the transition segment that is healthy or mildly degenerative.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Hybrid circumferential fixation for degenerative lumbosacral spine disease: posterior lumbar interbody fusion plus universal clamp rod-band instrumentation: a novel technique for lumbosacral fixation

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study on circumferential hybrid instrumentation with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and the novel posterior Universal Clamp (UC) instrumentation.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the roentgenographic and clinical outcome after PLIF with PEEK cage augmented with UC posterior sublaminar fixation without posterior fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although UC has been successfully used in scoliosis surgery, to our knowledge, this is the first report on its use in degenerative lumbosacral disease. Rigid pedicle screw lumbosacral fixation is associated with several intraoperative screw-related complications. The use of sublaminar bands and rods combined with PEEK PLIF should increase fusion rate and avoid screw-related complications.

METHODS

From a total of 295 consecutive patients who experienced degenerative lumbosacral disease and received posterior decompression, implantation of PLIF with PEEK cages and semirigid posterior fixation with sublaminar UC bands-rods without posterolateral fusion, 150 patients were eligible for this study with a follow-up of more than 2 years. Interbody fusion rate and global plus segmental sagittal spinal lordosis restoration were recorded pre- and postoperatively. Visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index were used to assess functional outcome.

RESULTS

Hybrid instrumentation expanded over 1 to 5 levels. Surgical time ranged from 45 to 225 minutes. Only 12.6% of the patients were transfused. There was no nerve root lesion or deep wound infection. Laminar fracture occurred intraoperatively in one case during band insertion. Interbody fusion was achieved in 94% of the operated segments. Lumbar lordosis improved from -36 ± 9° preoperatively to -53 ± 6° postoperatively. Segmental lordosis improved in L4-L5 segment from -5 ± 3° preoperatively to -12 ± 2° postoperatively and in L5-S1 from -9 ± 4° to -14 ± 2° postoperation. Oswestry Disability Index score improved from 44.9 preoperatively to 2.2 postoperatively (P < 0.001). No patient required further spinal surgery until the final evaluation.

CONCLUSION

UC, a novel semirigid sublaminar posterior instrumentation, combined with wedge-shaped PEEK PLIF corrected both global and segmental sagittal lumbar alignment and achieved fusion rate similar to that historically reported with pedicle screw-PLIF techniques, however, avoiding intraoperative complications associated with the use of pedicle screws.

Pedicle-Based Non-fusion Stabilization Devices: A Critical Review and Appraisal of Current Evidence

Over the last decades, spinal fusion has become one of the most important principles in surgical treatment of spinal pathologies. Despite the undoubted benefits of fusion surgery, there are several drawbacks associated with this technique, including adjacent segment degeneration and pseudoarthrosis. Based on biomechanical data, dynamic stabilization of the spine is intended to ameliorate adjacent level degeneration by stabilizing vertebral motion in defined planes and mimicking natural spine movements.In this paper, we review the literature and discuss past and present pedicle-based non-fusion dynamic stabilization devices. Although there is a paucity of high-quality prospective trials, studies have indicated both promising and disappointing results. In comparison to 360° fusion surgery, the perioperative risk seems to be lower. Other complications like screw loosening, however, have been reported with various systems, while a reduction of adjacent segment disease has not yet been demonstrated. The necessary degree of restabilization to achieve pain-free motion seems to vary greatly between patients and current systems are far from perfection. If these problems can be solved, dynamic stabilization may nevertheless be an important option of spinal surgery in the future.

Dynamic compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine: a systematic review

Objective: The objective of this review is to reveal the quality of published data and the effect size of DPFs compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine. Summary of background data: since 2002, several dynamic pedicle fixation (DPF) systems have been developed with the aim to stabilize the spine without the undesirable effects of rigid lumbar spine fixation. Nearly ten years later, there are several studies on these dynamic systems. Methods: A systematic review was done in MEDLINE/PubMED, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Trials and Google Scholar to assess the quality of published literature and the available studied outcomes in randomized controlled trials of DPF. Results: Only three papers described randomized trials studying DPF. One of them focused on protection of adjacent level disease provided by DPF. Conclusion: It was not possible to reveal any evidence for benefits using DPF compared to rigid fixation in surgery for lumbar spine.

Construcciones híbridas del raquis lumbosacro: trabajo preliminar - 20 casos

OBJETIVO: Presentar la filosofía utilizada y como y por qué decidimos proteger el nivel adyacente a una fusión. MÉTODOS: En el criterio de selección de 620 pacientes operados entre enero de 2007 y agosto de 2011 por patología degenerativa, inestabilidad y estenosis del conducto lumbosacro, se seleccionaron 30 pacientes con estadios de Pfirmann 3 y 4, de los cuales seis se perdieron en la consulta postoperatoria y cuatro rechazaron la terapéutica quirúrgica, quedando 20 pacientes que fueron intervenidos quirúrgicamente. La edad promedio de los pacientes fue de 46 años (rango: 22 a 71 años), siendo 11 hombres (55%) y 9 mujeres (45%). RESULTADOS: El seguimiento de los casos es de 6 meses a 2 años y hasta el momento no se evidenció empeoramiento clínicoo radiológico, ni aflojamiento de la instrumentación en ningún caso. CONCLUSIONES: Entendemos que la protección del nivel adyacente mediante el empleo de barras semirrígidas en PEEK sería una buena alternativa de protección debido a que no es necesario abordar el ligamento o los pedículos del nivel adyacente a la fusión.

A phased rehabilitation protocol for athletes with lumbar intervertebral disc herniation

Conservative non-surgical management of a herniated lumbar intervertebral disc (HLD) in athletes is a complex task due to the dramatic forces imparted on the spine during sport participation. The demands placed upon the athlete during rehabilitation and return to sport are unique not only from a sport specific perspective, but also regarding return to the sport strength and conditioning programs utilized for sport preparation. Many prescriptions fail to address postural and motor control faults specific to athletic development, which may prevent full return to sport after suffering a HLD or predispose the athlete to future exacerbations of a HLD. Strength exercises involving squatting, deadlifting, and Olympic power lifts are large components of the typical athlete's conditioning program, therefore some progressions are provided to address potential underlying problems in the athlete's technique that may have contributed to their HLD in the first place. The purpose of this clinical commentary is to propose a framework for rehabilitation that is built around the phases of healing of the disc. Phase I: Non-Rotational/Non-Flexion Phase (Acute Inflammatory Phase), Phase II: Counter rotation/Flexion Phase (Repair Phase), Phase III: Rotational Phase/Power development (Remodeling Phase), and Phase IV: Full return to sport. This clinical commentary provides a theoretical basis for these phases based on available literature as well as reviewing many popular current practice trends in the management of an HLD. The authors recognize the limits of any general exercise rehabilitation recommendation with regard to return to sport, as well as any general strength and conditioning program. It is vital that an individual assessment and prescription is made for every athlete which reviews and addresses movement in all planes of motion under all necessary extrinsic and intrinsic demands to that athlete.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

Elastic resistance of the spine: Why does motion preservation surgery almost fail?

Single metamere motility should not be interpreted merely as a movement on the 3 planes but also, and above all, as elastic resistance to dynamic stress on these 3 planes. In the light of this consideration, the aim of motion preservation is to neutralize excessive movements while preserving the physiological biomechanical properties of the metamere involved to interrupt the progression of degenerative processes and to prevent adjacent segment disease. Despite the fact that a myriad of devices have been developed with the purpose of achieving dynamic neutralization of the spine, there are now some doubts regarding the true efficacy of these devices.

Pretension effects of the Dynesys cord on the tissue responses and screw-spacer behaviors of the lumbosacral construct with hybrid fixation

STUDY DESIGN

The pretension of the Dynesys cord was varied to evaluate its effects on both tissue responses and screw-spacer behaviors by the finite-element method.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to provide detailed information about the motion-preserving and load-shielding mechanisms of the Dynesys screw-spacer joint.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Intuitively, higher cord pretension aims to ensure the occurrence of screw-spacer contact, thus making the spacer the transmitter of the vertebral loads. However, detailed investigations of the cord-pretension effects have not yet been carried out. METHODS.: Using a validated lumbosacral model, the moderately degenerative L4-L5 segment was instrumented by a static fixator and the Dynesys fixator was further used to bridge a mildly degenerative L3-L4 segment. The pre-tended cord was modeled as an elastic spring with 0- and 300-N pretensions. The disc range-of-motion, disc stress, facet force, bone-screw stress, and screw-spacer force were chosen as comparison indices. RESULTS.: At the transition and adjacent segments, the range-of-motion differences between the 2 pretensions were 7.7% and 2.0% on average, respectively. The mechanical differences at the transition and adjacent segments were 9.0% and 5.2% (disc stress) and 9.4% and 9.1% (facet force), respectively. The results indicated that the cord pretension has a minor effect on the adjacent segments in comparison with the transition segment. However, the stress at the screw hub and force of the screw-spacer contact of the 300-N pretension were increased by 33.7% and 316.5% on average than without pretension, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The moment arm from the screw-cord center to the fulcrum is significantly less than that of vertebral loads. This leads to the minor effect of increasing the cord pretension on the responses of the adjacent segments. However, the cord pretension can significantly affect both screw-spacer force and bone-screw stress.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Prevalence of adjacent segment degeneration after spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of published prevalence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) after spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence of ASD in patients after cervical and lumbar spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ASD is a common complication after spine surgery in long-term follow-up. A large body of literature has been reported on the topic, but no meta-analysis of the epidemiological data on ASD has been published

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE until March 2012 published in English language that reported the prevalence of ASD after spine surgery. We determined the ASD rates by calculating proportions and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study and then pooled the data to derive a pooled proportion and 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 94 studies with 34,716 patients from 19 countries were included. The occurrence of radiograph ASD ranged from 4.8% to 92.2%, and the pooled prevalence was 29.3% (95% CI, 22.7%-35.8%) by the random-effects model. The occurrence of symptoms ASD ranged from 0.0% to 30.3%, and the pooled prevalence was 7.4% (95% CI, 6.4%-8.5%). In cervical position, the occurrence of radiograph ASD and symptoms ASD was 32.8% (95% CI, 17.8%-47.9%) and 6.3% (95% CI, 4.8%-7.8%); in lumbar position, the occurrence of radiograph ASD and symptoms ASD was 26.6% (95% CI, 21.3%-31.9%) and 8.5% (95% CI, 6.4%-10.7%). In the 0.5- to 2- or less, more than 2- to 5- or less, and more than 5- to 20- or less year diagnosis time, the radiograph ASD prevalence was 21.8% (16.0%-27.6%), 33.6% (21.8%-45.4%), and 37.4% (10.7%-64.1%), respectively; and the symptoms ASD prevalence was 6.5% (4.8%-8.1%), 12.1% (8.2%-16.0%), and 3.2% (2.5%-4.0%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Spine surgery is associated with significant risk of ASD. These figures may be useful in the estimation of the burden of the ASD after spine surgery.

Additional decompression at adjacent segments leads to adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF

PURPOSE

Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is one of the major complications of lumbar fusion. Several previous retrospective studies reported ASD after PLIF. However, few reports evaluated whether decompression surgery combined with fusion surgery increases the rate of complications in adjacent segments. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the degeneration in decompressed adjacent segments after PLIF.

METHODS

A total of 23 patients (12 men, 11 women; average age, 58.6) who underwent PLIF surgery [1 level (n = 9), 2 levels (n = 8), 3 levels (n = 4), 4 levels (n = 2)] were included. Additional adjacent decompression above or below the level of interbody fusion was performed at 25 levels and no adjacent decompression was performed at 15 levels. We retrospectively investigated ASD by X-ray films of all 40 adjacent segments (above and below fusion level) and clinical outcomes of all 23 cases.

RESULTS

Of the 40 adjacent segments, 19 (47.5%) showed ASD and 9 (22.5%) showed symptomatic ASD. In the 19 segments with ASD, ASD occurred in 16 of 25 (64.0%) segments at decompressed sites compared with 3 of 15 (20.0%) non-decompressed sites. The ratio of ASD in adjacent segments was significantly higher at decompressed sites than at non-decompressed sites (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

ASD occurs frequently in association with additional decompression above or below the level of PLIF. In cases in which the adjacent segments require decompression, a surgical strategy that preserves as much of the posterior complex as possible should be selected.

Comparison of the biomechanical effect of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization: a study using finite element analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Recently, nonfusion pedicle-based dynamic stabilization systems (PBDSs) have been developed and used in the management of degenerative lumbar spinal diseases. Still effects on spinal kinematics and clinical effects are controversial. Little biomechanical information exists for providing biomechanical characteristics of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization according to the PBDS design before clinical implementation.

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of implanting PBDSs into the spinal functional unit and elucidate the differences in biomechanical characteristics according to different materials and design.

STUDY DESIGN

The biomechanical effects of implantation of PBDS were investigated using the nonlinear three-dimensional finite element model of L4-L5.

METHODS

An already validated three-dimensional, intact osteoligamentous L4-L5 finite element model was modified to incorporate the insertion of pedicle screws. The implanted models were constructed after modifying the intact model to simulate postoperative changes using four different fixation systems. Four models instrumented with PBDS (Dynesys, NFlex, and polyetheretherketone [PEEK]) and rigid fixation systems (conventional titanium rod) were developed for comparison. The instrumented models were compared with those of the intact and rigid fixation model. Range of motion (ROM) in three motion planes, center of rotation (COR), force on the facet joint, and von Mises stress distribution on the vertebral body and implants with flexion-extension were compared among the models.

RESULTS

Simulated results demonstrated that implanted segments with PBDSs have limited ROM when compared with the intact spine. Flexion motion was the most limited, and axial rotation was the least limited, after device implantation. Among the PBDS selected in this analysis, the NFlex system had the closest instantaneous COR compared with the intact model and a higher ROM compared with other PBDS. Contact force on the facet joint in extension increased with an increase of moment in Dynesys and NFlex; however, the rigid or PEEK rod fixation revealed no facet contact force.

CONCLUSIONS

Implanted segments with PBDSs have limited ROM when compared with the intact spine. Center of rotation and stress distribution differed according to the design and materials used. These biomechanical effects produced a nonphysiological stress on the functional spinal unit when they were implanted. The biomechanical effects of current PBDSs should be carefully considered before clinical implementation.