Does hybrid fixation prevent junctional disease after posterior fusion for degenerative lumbar disorders? A minimum 5-year follow-up study

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.

Biomechanical comparisons of dynamic fixators with rod-rod and screw-spacer joints on lumbar hybrid fixation

BACKGROUND

Hybrid fixators with quite different joint design concepts have been widely to suppress adjacent segment degeneration problems. The kinematic and kinetic responses of the adjacent and transition segments and contact behaviors at the bone-screw interfaces served as the objective of this study.

METHODS

The moderately degenerated L4/L5 and mildly degenerative L3/L4 segments were respectively immobilized by a static fixator and further bridged by the rod-rod (Isobar) and screw-spacer (Dynesys) fixator. The joint stiffness and mobility of the rod-rod system and the cable pretension of the screw-spacer system were systematically varied.

FINDINGS

The flexion of the screw-spacer system provided higher mobility to the transition segment, reducing adjacent-segment problems. The cable pretension had a minor effect on the construct behavior. However, due to limited joint mobility, the rod-rod system showed higher constraints to the transition segment and induced more adjacent-segment compensations. The increased mobility of the rod-rod joint caused it to behave as a more dynamic fixator that increased adjacent-segment compensations at the transition segment. Comparatively, increasing the joint mobility showed more significant effects on the construct behaviors than decreasing the joint stiffness. Furthermore, increased constraint by the rod-rod joint induced higher stress and risk of loosening at the bone-screw interfaces INTERPRETATION: If the protection of the transition segment is the major concern, the rod-rod system can be used to constrain the intervertebral motion and share the higher loads through the fixator. Otherwise, the screw-spacer system is recommended in situations where higher loads onto the transition disc are allowable.

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.

Biomechanics of adjacent segment after three-level lumbar fusion, hybrid single-level semi-rigid fixation with two-level lumbar fusion

Multi-level spinal fusion has been reported in some cases to lead to adjacent segment disease (ASD) and proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). The purpose of this study was to demonstrate a polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) rod fixation system implanted adjacent to a two-level lumbar fusion would have a lower risk of PJK than three-level lumbar fusion, which was investigated by comparing the biomechanical effects on the adjacent level after surgical procedures. Four finite element (FE) models of the lumbar-sacral spine (intact model (INT), L4-S1 fusion model (L4-S1 FUS), L3-S1 fusion model (L3-S1 FUS), and single-level PEEK rod semi-rigid fixation adjacent to L4-S1 fusion model (FUSPRF)) were established. Displacement-controlled finite element (FE) analysis was used during the simulation. Compared with the two-level fusion model (L4-S1 FUS), both three-level implanted models (L3-S1 FUS and FUSPRF) showed an increase intersegmental rotation angle, and maximum von-Mises stress on the disc annulus. The results also showed that the intersegmental rotation, stress on the disc annulus and maximum stress on the rod were lower in the FUSPRF model than the L3-S1 FUS model. Though the maximum screw stress was higher in the FUSPRF model than the L3-S1 FUS model under all moments except for torsion, the maximum screw stress in the two models were far below the yield strength of titanium alloy. As the parameters above have been indicated as risk factors for PJK, it can be concluded that hybrid single-level PEEK rod semi-rigid fixation and two-level lumbar fusion have a lower risk of PJK than three-level lumbar fusion.

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.

Finite element modelling of hybrid stabilization systems for the human lumbar spine

Intersomatic fusion is a very popular treatment for spinal diseases associated with intervertebral disc degeneration. The effects of three different hybrid stabilization systems on both range of motion and intradiscal pressure were investigated, as there is no consensus in the literature about the efficiency of these systems. Finite element simulations were designed to predict the variations of range of motion and intradiscal pressure from intact to implanted situations. After hybrid stabilization system implantation, L4-L5 level did not lose its motion completely, while L5-S1 had no mobility as a consequence of disc removal and fusion process. BalanC hybrid stabilization system represented higher mobility at the index level, reduced intradiscal pressure of adjacent level, but caused to increment in range of motion by 20% under axial rotation. Higher tendency by 93% to the failure was also detected under axial rotation. Dynesys hybrid stabilization system represented more restricted motion than BalanC, and negligible effects to the adjacent level. B-DYN hybrid stabilization system was the most rigid one among all three systems. It reduced intradiscal pressure and range of motion at the adjacent level except from motion under axial rotation being increased by 13%. Fracture risk of B-DYN and Dynesys Transition Optima components was low when compared with BalanC. Mobility of the adjacent level around axial direction should be taken into account in case of implantation with BalanC and B-DYN systems, as well as on the development of new designs. Having these findings in mind, it is clear that hybrid systems need to be further tested, both clinically and numerically, before being considered for common use.

Incidence and risk factors of reoperation in patients with adjacent segment disease: A meta-analysis

Study Design:

This was a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Objective:

The objective of this study was to evaluate the current literature regarding the risk factors contributing to reoperation due to adjacent segment disease (ASD).

Summary of Background Data:

ASD is a broad term referring to a variety of complications which might require reoperation. Revision spine surgery is known to be associated with poor clinical outcomes and high rate of complications. Unplanned reoperation has been suggested as a quality marker for the hospitals.

Materials and Methods:

An electronic search was conducted using PubMed. A total of 2467 articles were reviewed. Of these, 55 studies met our inclusion criteria and included an aggregate of 1940 patients. Data were collected pertaining to risk factors including age, sex, fusion length, lumbar lordosis, body mass index, pelvic incidence, sacral slope, pelvis tilt, initial pathology, type of fusion procedure, floating versus sacral or pelvic fusion, presence of preoperative facet or disc degeneration at the junctional segment, and sagittal orientation of the facets at the junctional segment. Analysis of the data was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Biostat, Inc.).

Results:

The overall pooled incidence rate of reoperation due to ASD from all included studies was 0.08 (confidence interval: 0.065–0.098). Meta-regression analysis demonstrated no significant interaction between age and reoperation rate (P = 0.48). A comparison of the event rates between males and females demonstrated no significant difference between male and female reoperation rates (P = 0.58). There was a significantly higher rate of ASD in patients with longer fusion constructs (P = 0.0001).

Conclusions:

We found that 8% of patients in our included studies required reoperation due to ASD. Our analysis also revealed that longer fusion constructs correlated with a higher rate of subsequent revision surgery. Therefore, the surgeon should limit the number of fusion levels if possible to reduce the risk of future reoperation due to ASD.

Level of evidence:

IV

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.

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.

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).

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.

Evaluation of a Hybrid Dynamic Stabilization and Fusion System in the Lumbar Spine: A 10 Year Experience

INTRODUCTION

The development of adjacent-segment disease is a recognized consequence of lumbar fusion surgery. Posterior dynamic stabilization, or motion preservation, techniques have been developed which theoretically decrease stress on adjacent segments following fusion. This study presents the experience of using a hybrid dynamic stabilization and fusion construct for degenerative lumbar spine pathology in place of rigid arthrodesis.

METHODS

A clinical cohort investigation was conducted of 66 consecutive patients (31 female, 35 male; mean age: 53 years, range: 25 - 76 years) who underwent posterior lumbar instrumentation with the Dynesys Transition Optima (DTO) implant (Zimmer-Biomet Spine, Warsaw, IN) hybrid dynamic stabilization and fusion system over a 10-year period. The median length of follow-up was five years. DTO consists of pedicle screw fixation coupled to a rigid rod as well as a flexible longitudinal connecting system. All patients had symptoms of back pain and neurogenic claudication refractory to non-surgical treatment. Patients underwent lumbar arthrodesis surgery in which the hybrid system was used for stabilization instead of arthrodesis of the stenotic adjacent level.

RESULTS

Indications for DTO instrumentation were primary degenerative disc disease (n = 52) and failed back surgery syndrome (n = 14). The most common dynamically stabilized and fused segments were L3-L4 (n = 37) and L5-S1 (n = 33), respectively. Thirty-eight patients (56%) underwent decompression at the dynamically stabilized level, and 57 patients (86%) had an interbody device placed at the level of arthrodesis. Complications during the follow-up period included a single case of screw breakage and a single case of pseudoarthrosis. Ten patients (15%) subsequently underwent conversion of the dynamic stabilization portion of their DTO instrumentation to rigid spinal arthrodesis.

CONCLUSION

The DTO system represents a novel hybrid dynamic stabilization and fusion construct. This 10-year experience found the device to be highly effective as well as safe. The technique may serve as an alternative to multilevel arthrodesis. Implantation of a motion-preserving dynamic stabilization device immediately adjacent to a fused level instead of extending a rigid construct may reduce the subsequent development of adjacent-segment disease in this patient population.