Dynamic posterior stabilization for degenerative lumbar spine disease: a large consecutive case series with long-term follow-up by additional postal survey

Lumbar dynamic pedicle-based stabilization versus fusion in degenerative disease: a multicenter, double-blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Fusion is the standard of treatment for degenerative lumbar symptomatic instabilities. Dynamic stabilization is a potential alternative, with the aim of reducing pathological motion. Potential advantages are a reduction of surgical complexity and morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess whether dynamic stabilization is associated with a higher degree of functional improvement while reducing surgical complexity and thereby surgical duration and perioperative complications in comparison with lumbar fusion.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, double-blind, prospective, randomized, 2-arm superiority trial. Patients with symptomatic mono- or bisegmental lumbar degenerative disease with or without stenosis and instability were randomized 1:1 to instrumented fusion or pedicle-based dynamic stabilization. Patients underwent either rigid internal fixation and interbody fusion or pedicle-based dynamic stabilization. The primary endpoint was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and secondary endpoints were pain, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction at 24 months.

RESULTS

Of 293 patients randomized to fusion or dynamic stabilization, 269 were available for analysis. The duration of surgery was significantly shorter for dynamic stabilization versus fusion, and the blood loss was significantly less for dynamic stabilization (380 ml vs 506 ml). Assessment of primary and secondary outcome parameters revealed no significant differences between groups. There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Dynamic pedicle-based stabilization can achieve similar clinical outcome as fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative instabilities. Secondary failures are not different between groups. However, dynamic stabilization is less complex than fusion and is a feasible alternative.

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.

Minimally invasive dynamic screw stabilization using cortical bone trajectory

BACKGROUND

The conventional pedicle-screw-based dynamic stabilization process involves dissection of the Wiltse plane to cannulate the pedicles, which cannot be undertaken with minimal surgical invasion. Despite some reports having demonstrated satisfactory outcomes of dynamic stabilization in the management of low-grade spondylolisthesis, the extensive soft tissue dissection involved during pedicle screw insertion substantially compromises the designed rationale of motion (muscular) preservation. The authors report on a novel method for minimally invasive insertion of dynamic screws and a mini case series.

METHODS

The authors describe innovations for inserting dynamic screws via the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) under spinal navigation. All the detailed surgical procedures and clinical data are demonstrated.

RESULTS

A total of four (2 females) patients (mean age 64.75 years) with spinal stenosis at L4-5 were included. By a combination of microscopic decompression and image-guided CBT screw insertion, laminectomy and dynamic screw stabilization were achieved via one small skin incision (less than 3 cm). These patients' back and leg pain improved significantly after the surgery.

CONCLUSION

This innovative dynamic screw stabilization via the CBT involved no discectomy (or removal of sequestrated fragment only), no interbody fusion, and little muscle dissection (not even of the Wiltse plane). As a minimally invasive surgery, CBT appeared to be a viable alternative to the conventional pedicle-screw-based dynamic stabilization approach.

A Prospective Long-term Follow-up Study of the Posterior Dynamic Stabilizing System to Treat Back Pain Associated With Degenerative Disc Disease

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term effectiveness of a posterior dynamic spine stabilization (PDS) System called PercuDyn system as a treatment for low back pain (LBP) in patients with degenerative disc disease who have failed conservative treatment.

METHODS

Thirty-five patients (21 males, 14 females, mean age 36 years) with chronic LBP due to degenerative disc disease underwent percutaneous facet augmentation with the PercuDyn system. Indications for implanting the PercuDyn device were chronic LBP without sciatica, significant disc degeneration, and who failed conservative treatment. Follow-up after surgery ranged from 4 to 8 years. Patients were clinically evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire, and the EQ-5D3L.

RESULTS

The VAS scale and ODI scores improved at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 4 to 8 years in comparison with the baseline values (P < .001 and P < .01, respectively). Equally, data from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire suggested improvements in all domains, including pain and discomfort, over the follow-up period. However, during follow-up, 16 patients (46%) have had unsatisfactory outcome including failure of implant to resolve symptoms (n = 8), developed symptomatic disc protrusion (n = 4), and loosening of the screws (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

Our clinical experience highlights the rather high overall failure rate of this system. Although, some patients show significant improvement in their symptoms, we believe that patients with LBP related to degenerative disc disease are a poor indication for this PDS device.However, large scale studies, with optimised selection criteria are needed to demonstrate the exact role of this device in spinal patients.

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.

Invasiveness has no influence on the rate of incidental durotomies in surgery for multisegmental lumbar spinal canal stenosis (≥ 3 levels) with and without fusion. Analysis from the German Spine Registry data (DWG-Register)

BACKGROUND

Nowadays, perioperative complications as dural tear (DT) with subsequent neurological deficits are documented in independent registers. However, the relationship of these complications with the grade of invasiveness (≥3 levels) is still unclear. We attempted to evaluate perioperative complications, particularly DT with subsequent neurological deficits, between patients undergoing laminotomy and decompression and decompression and fusion in ≥3 levels.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the data pool of the DWG register based on cases described by 10 clinics between January 2012 and December 2016 was performed. Surgically treated LSS in ≥3 segments were divided into decompression with or without instrumentation and fusion. Cases with intraoperative DT in both subgroups were analysed for risk factor occurrence. The Surgical Invasive Index (SII) was used.

RESULTS

DT occurred in 102/941 (10.8%) patients. Difference in DT between groups was non- significant. The likelihood of DT increased by 2.12-fold with previous spinal surgery at the same level and by 1.9-fold for BMI 30-34 and >35 in comparison with BMI 26-29, respectively. Postoperative deep wound infection was increased by 2.39-fold after DT than without. Significance in outcomes between patients with/without DT was not found. The invasiveness index explained 48% of the variation in blood loss and 51% of the variation in surgery duration.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of incidental DT during decompression for LSS with and without fusion in ≥3 levels was associated with BMI and previous surgery at the same spinal level. Invasivness (SII) is valid rather for variables proper to surgery such as bledding and Op-time but no with incidence for DT and subsequent CSF-leackage.

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.

Revisions for screw malposition and clinical outcomes after robot-guided lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVE

The accuracy of robot-guided pedicle screw placement has been proven to be high, but little is known about the impact of such guidance on clinical outcomes such as the rate of revision surgeries for screw malposition. In addition, there are very few data about the impact of robot-guided fusion on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Thus, the clinical benefit for the patient is unclear. In this study, the authors analyzed revision rates for screw malposition and changes in PROs following minimally invasive robot-guided pedicle screw fixation.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients who had undergone minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MI-PLIF) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was performed. Patients were followed up clinically at 6 weeks, 12 months, and 24 months after treatment and by mailed questionnaire in March 2016 as a final follow-up. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain severity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), screw revisions, and socio-demographic factors were analyzed. A literature review was performed, comparing the incidence of intraoperative screw revisions and revision surgery for screw malposition in robot-guided, navigated, and freehand fusion procedures.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients fit the study inclusion criteria and had a mean follow up of 32 ± 17 months. No screws had to be revised intraoperatively, and no revision surgery for screw malposition was needed. In the literature review, the authors found a higher rate of intraoperative screw revisions in the navigated pool than in the robot-guided pool (p < 0.001, OR 9.7). Additionally, a higher incidence of revision surgery for screw malposition was observed for freehand procedures than for the robot-guided procedures (p < 0.001, OR 8.1). The VAS score for back pain improved significantly from 66.9 ± 25.0 preoperatively to 30.1 ± 26.8 at the final follow-up, as did the VAS score for leg pain (from 70.6 ± 22.8 to 24.3 ± 28.3) and ODI (from 43.4 ± 18.3 to 16.2 ± 16.7; all p < 0.001). Undergoing PLIF, a high body mass index, smoking status, and a preoperative ability to work were identified as predictors of a reduction in back pain. Length of hospital stay was 2.4 ± 1.1 days and operating time was 161 ± 50 minutes. Ability to work increased from 38.9% to 78.2% of patients (p < 0.001) at the final follow-up, and 89.1% of patients indicated they would choose to undergo the same treatment again.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with low-grade spondylolisthesis, the data demonstrated a benefit in using robotic guidance to reduce the rate of revision surgery for screw malposition as compared with other techniques of pedicle screw insertion described in peer-reviewed publications. Larger comparative studies are required to assess differences in PROs following a minimally invasive approach in spinal fusion surgeries compared with other techniques.