Long-term Outcome After Monosegmental L4/5 Stabilization for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis With the Dynesys Device

A PEEK Rod-Based Dynamic Instrumentation Construct for the Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease, First Appraisal Based on Five-year Clinical and Radiological Findings

Purpose

The present retrospective study delivers first results after the use of a pedicle based, screw and peek rod system. Emphasis was placed on the ability of the construct to prevent adjacent segment disease at an average of 5 years follow-up by maintaining a certain degree of movement in the index segment. This was evaluated via functional X Rays before and after surgery.

Patients and Methods

The cohort comprised 100 patients which received decompressive surgery in one or more segments with dynamic instrumentation for stenosis of the lumbar spinal canal and degenerative spondylolisthesis. We analyzed diagnostic imagery including functional X Rays prior and after surgery as well as cohort demographics such as reoperation rate, complications and overall patient satisfaction.

Results

The average age was 68 years, at 58 months follow-up there were 43 cases of radiological adjacent segment disease. We defined a radiological ASD as an increase of the osteoarthritis on the Wiener scale and stenosis of the spinal canal on the MRI scans. In our cohort 80 patients benefited from the surgery, either being pain free or having improved symptoms at the mean follow-up with the others either requiring renewed surgery or having developed clinically significant ASD. There was no significant statistical correlation between area of spinal canal, gender and outcome.

Conclusion

In one segment constructs the system being evaluated showed no major disadvantage when compared to similar non-fusion pedicle-based techniques nor was it able to consequently prevent ASD. Under the clinical point of view there was in our opinion no marked benefit when compared against decompressive surgery and fusion as the accepted standard. Regarding the multi segment instrumentation further larger number studies are needed to reach a conclusion.

COMPARISON OF DYNESYS AND HYBRID SYSTEM FOR MULTI-SEGMENTAL LDD

Objective

To compare effectiveness of Dynesys and hybrid system in treating patients with multi-segmental lumbar degenerative disease (LDD).

Methods

Patients involved in this retrospective study were divided into Dynesys (n = 22) and Hybrid (n = 13) groups. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Radiologic evaluations included X-ray, MRI, and CT. Furthermore, different complications were analyzed.

Results

At the last follow-up, ODI and VAS of each group were improved (p < 0.05), and the range of motion (ROM) of operating segments decreased. However, Dynesys group preserved a larger extent of ROM at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). ROM of the upper adjacent segment was increased in both groups (p < 0.05), while the disc heights were decreased at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). Besides, Dynesys group had a more obvious decrease in the disc height of dynamic segments (p < 0.05). No significant difference existed in complications between both groups (p > 0. 05).

Conclusion

In our study, similar satisfactory results were obtained in both groups. Both surgical procedures can be employed as effective treatments for middle-aged and physically active patients with multi-segmental LDD. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective Comparative Study.

Medium and long-term radiographic and clinical outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization versus instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar spine diseases

BACKGROUND

Dynesys stabilization (DS) is utilized to preserve mobility at the instrumental segments and prevent adjacent segment pathology in clinical practice. However, the advantages of DS method in medium and long-term follow-up remain controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes between DS and instrumented fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease with or without grade I spondylolisthesis with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases, Chinese National Knowledge Databases, and Wanfang Database for potentially eligible articles. Clinical outcomes were assessed in terms of VAS and ODI scores, screw loosening and breakage, and surgical revision. Radiographic outcomes were assessed in terms of postoperative range of movement (ROM) and disc heigh. Moreover, adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) and adjacent segment disease (ASDis) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies with 1296 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The DS group was associated with significantly lower postoperative VAS scores for low-back and leg pain, and lower rate of surgical revision than the fusion group. Moreover, the Dynesys group showed significantly less ASDeg than the fusion group but showed no significant advantage over the fusion group in terms of preventing ASDis. Additionally, the ROM at the stabilized segments of the fusion group decreased significantly and that at the adjacent segments increased significantly compared with those of the DS group.

CONCLUSION

DS showed comparable clinical outcomes and provided benefits in preserving the motion at the stabilized segments, thus limiting the hypermobility at the adjacent segments and preventing ASDeg compared with the fusion method in degenerative disease with or without grade I spondylolisthesis.

Evaluation of outcomes of discectomy with a dynamic neutralization system in treatment of lumbar disk herniation

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to explore the clinical outcomes of discectomy with dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys) for single-segmental lumbar disk herniation (LDH) versus simple discectomy.

METHODS

The eligible patients with single-segmental LDH were randomly divided into the discectomy with Dynesys group (group A) and the simple discectomy group (group B). The Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog score (VAS), radiological results of intervertebral height and range of motion (ROM) of the treated segment were evaluated pre- and post-operatively in both groups. Operation duration and blood loss were recorded. Complications, reoperation, and mortality were also assessed. All patients received a 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

123 (96.1%) participants completed the follow-up. The operation duration and blood loss of group B were significantly lower than those of group A (p<0.05). After operation, ODI and VAS were improved significantly in both groups, and there was no significant difference between the two groups immediately after surgery. But a rising trend was found in ODI and VAS of group B, especially after the 1-year follow-up (p<0.05). X-rays showed a continuing loss of intervertebral height of the treated segment in group B, while it was preserved in group A (p<0.05). ROM of the treated segment was also maintained stable in group A.

CONCLUSION

Discectomy with Dynesys is safe and effective for LDH treatment.

Dynamization-Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Hemodialysis-Related Spondyloarthropathy: Evaluation of the Radiographic Outcomes and Reoperation Rate within 2 Years Postoperatively

Study Design

Clinical case series.

Purpose

This study aimed to report dynamization-posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), our surgical treatment for hemodialysisrelated spondyloarthropathy (HSA), and investigate patients' postoperative course within 2 years.

Overview of Literature

HSA often requires lumbar fusion surgery. Conventional PLIF for HSA may cause progressive destructive changes in the vertebral endplate, leading to progressive cage subsidence, pedicle screw loosening, and pseudoarthrosis. A dynamic stabilization system might be effective in patients with a poor bone quality. Thus, we performed "dynamization-PLIF" in hemodialysis patients with destructive vertebral endplate changes.

Methods

We retrospectively examined patients with HSA who underwent dynamization-PLIF at our hospital between April 2010 and March 2018. The radiographic measurements included lumbar lordosis and local lordosis in the fused segment. The evaluation points were before surgery, immediately after surgery, 1 year after surgery, and 2 years after surgery. The preoperative and postoperative radiographic findings were compared using a paired t-test. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

We included 50 patients (28 males, 22 females). Lumbar lordosis and local lordosis were significantly improved through dynamization- PLIF (lumbar lordosis, 28.4°-35.5°; local lordosis, 2.7°-12.8°; p<0.01). The mean local lordosis was maintained throughout the postoperative course at 1- and 2-year follow-up (12.9°-12.8°, p=0.89 and 12.9°-11.8°, p=0.07, respectively). Solid fusion was achieved in 59 (89%) of 66 fused segments. Solid fusion of all fixed segments was achieved in 42 cases (84%). Within 2 years postoperatively, only six cases (12%) were reoperated (two, surgical debridement for surgical site infection; two, reoperation for pedicle screw loosening; one, laminectomy for epidural hematoma; one, additional fusion for adjacent segment disease).

Conclusions

Dynamization-PLIF showed local lordosis improvement, a high solid fusion rate, and a low reoperation rate within 2 years of follow-up.

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.

Should Iliac Wing Screws Be Included in Long Segment Dynamic Stabilization?

Background

In this article, clinical satisfaction and radiological results are discussed in a series of patients where the iliac wings participate in dynamic stabilization. Dynamic stabilization is an effective alternative surgical treatment method, especially in clinical pictures that go with pain due to minor instabilities. Practically the unique surgical instrument used in multilevel instabilities is the Dynesys system. The most important drawback of the Dynesys system is that the S1 screws become loose in time. In this article, our aim is to find solution to S1 insufficiency by extension of the system to the iliac wings.

Methods

Nineteen patients (eight females, 11 males) with a mean age of 54.16 were included in the study. Patients had multilevel (level 2 and above) instability, iliac wings were included in the stabilized segments, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used for patient follow-up.

Results

First year results showed a significant improvement in VAS and ODI. Regarding the complications, infection developed in one patient, loosening in the proximal iliac wing in one patient, and both S1 and iliac proximals in one patient, but no clinical findings were encountered.

Conclusion

When more than two levels of dynamic systems are used in chronic instability, especially in the elderly patients, S1 screws are loosened. In these patients, if the iliac bones are also included in stabilization, this problem is solved successfully. However unfortunately, Dynesys system does not have a screw suitable for the iliac bones.

Good clinical outcomes in nonunion cases after facet fusion with a percutaneous pedicle screw system for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

There are many satisfactory long-term outcomes after posterolateral fusion (PLF) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS); nonunion cases have also achieved good clinical outcomes. Facet fusion (FF), a minimally invasive evolution of PLF, also resulted in good clinical outcomes. We aimed to assess the course of nonunion cases after FF and determine whether the nonunion cases achieved good clinical outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 136 patients who underwent FF for DLS. Range of motion (ROM) at the fused level was measured using a flexion-extension lateral radiograph preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Patients were classified into the Fusion or Unconfirmed Fusion group by computed tomography (CT) 1 year postoperatively. Furthermore, patients in the Unconfirmed Fusion group were classified into the Delayed Union or Nonunion group depending on the confirmation status of FF upon the following CT. The average preoperative ROM and clinical outcomes were compared between the three groups. The Fusion, Delayed Union, and Nonunion groups had 109, 14, and 13 patients, respectively. In the Nonunion group, the average ROM significantly decreased from 13.0° preoperatively to 4.9° postoperatively. There was a significant difference in the average preoperative ROM between the groups. The larger the preoperative ROM, the fewer facets fused. There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups. Five patients (3.7%) required revision surgery for adjacent segment disease 1-5.5 years after FF. Even nonunion cases after FF achieved good clinical outcomes, likely because the unstable spondylolisthesis was stabilized. FF did not require revision surgery for nonunion itself.

Is Dynesys dynamic stabilization system superior to posterior lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases?

Dynesys, a pedicle-based dynamic stabilization system, was introduced to overcome some undesirable complications of fusion procedures. Nevertheless, the theoretical advantages of Dynesys over fusion have not been clearly confirmed. The purpose of this editorial was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent Dynesys system with those who underwent posterior lumbar fusion according to the existing literature and to see if the application of the Dynesys system is superior to the traditional lumbar fusion surgery. According to published clinical reports, the short-term effects of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system are similar to that of traditional lumbar fusion surgery. Three comparative studies of Dynesys dynamic stabilization and fusion surgery with medium-term follow-up are encouraging. However, the results from four single-treatment-arm and small-sample studies of case series with long-term follow-up were not encouraging. In the present circumstances, it is not possible to conclude that the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system is superior to fusion surgery for lumbar degenerative diseases.

Mobility-Preserving Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations

Background

Although decompression is the basis of surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), under various circumstances instrumented fusion is performed as well. The rationale for mobility-preserving operations for LSS is preventing adjacent segment disease (ASD). We review the rationale for mobility preservation in ASD and discuss related topics such as indications for fusion and the evolving role of minimally invasive approaches to lumbar spine decompression. Our focus is on systematic review and consensus discussion of mobility-preserving surgical methods as related to surgery for LSS.

Methods

Groups of spinal surgeons (members of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies Spine Committee) performed systematic reviews of dynamic fixation systems, including hybrid constructs, and of interspinous process devices; consensus statements were generated based on the reviews at 2 voting sessions by the committee several months apart. Additional review of background data was performed, and the results summarized in this review.

Results

Decompression is the basis of surgical treatment of LSS. Fusion is an option, especially when spondylolisthesis or instability are present, but indications remain controversial. ASD incidence reports show high variability. ASD may represent the natural progression of degenerative disease in many cases. Older age, poor sagittal balance, and multilevel fusion may be associated with more ASD. Dynamic fixation constructs are treatment options that may help prevent ASD.

Comparison of Nitinol and Titanium Nails Effectiveness for Lumbosacral Spine Fixation in Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Spine Diseases

Relevance. Surgical decompression and decompression with stabilization are highly effective for treatment of spinal canal stenosis at the level of lumbar spine. However, complications developing after application of rigid fixation systems resulted in active introduction of dynamic implants into clinical practice.

Purpose of the study — to compare effectiveness of nitinol and titanium nails for lumbosacral fixation in surgical treatment of degenerative spine diseases.

Materials and methods. 220 patients who underwent surgeries in 4 hospitals were randomized into two groups, each consisting of 110 patients (1:1 ratio): a group of patients who underwent stabilization of the vertebral motor segments with rods of nitinol with the required volume of decompression at the operation level and a group of patients who underwent stabilization of the vertebral motor segments with standard rods of titanium with the required volume of decompression at the intervention level. Patients suffered clinically significant spinal canal stenosis in one or two adjacent segments: from L3 to S1. Outcomes were evaluated during three years postoperatively by VAS scale for spine and lower limbs, and by ODI and SF-36 scales.

Results. All scales demonstrated better values in both groups of patients, namely, significant decrease of pain syndrome and improvement in mental and physical health. X-ray examination of all patients during the study period demonstrated restoration of lumbar lordosis. Group of patients with dynamic nails featured less complications rate related to metal implants including adjacent segment disease.

Conclusion. Transpedicular fixation of lumbosacral spine by nitinol nails is an effective technique allowing to preserve motion along with stable fixation.

Temporary axial rotation stabilization for lumbar disc herniation surgery with the ARO® spinal system: a prospective analysis of safety and clinical efficacy

Background

Decompressive surgery has a failure rate of between 25% and 32% based on patient reported improvement in clinical symptoms. Significant back pain is associated with 53% of failures of decompressive surgery, while also being associated with abnormal axial rotation motion. We report on the clinical performance of subjects receiving a novel axial rotation stabilization implant (ARO Spinal System, ARO Medical), while undergoing a surgical decompression for a herniated lumbar disc, a condition associated with low back pain and abnormal movement.

Methods

This Danish Medicines Agency and Ethics Committee approved clinical trial prospectively investigated the use of the ARO^® Spinal System as part of lumbar discectomy surgery in 20 patients. All subjects had a single level posterolateral lumbar herniation with symptoms lasting more than 6 weeks. They underwent an open discectomy at the symptomatic level, and received the implant.

Results

No complications with the implant were observed. Four serious adverse events not related to the devices were reported, one subject had reoperation at 3 months. Leg pain median VAS score decreased from 70 to 2 at 1 year (P=0.01) back pain median VAS score from 48 to 6 (P=0.04). Satisfaction with surgery was 88%. Oswestry Disability Index scored likewise improvement going from 38 pre-operative to 5 at 1 year. Follow-up rate was excellent 100%.

Conclusions

Discectomy with the ARO Spinal System proves equally safe as a standard discectomy at 1 year follow-up. The subjects had significant improvements in both leg and back pain. In addition, they did better than historical controls, though not statistically so in this patient sample.

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.

Management of symptomatic degenerative low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis

Degenerative low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis is the most common form of spondylolisthesis.

The majority of patients are asymptomatic and do not require surgical intervention.

Symptomatic patients present with a combination of lower back pain, radiculopathy and/or neurogenic claudication and may warrant surgery if non-operative measures fail.

There is widespread controversy regarding the indications for surgery and appropriate treatment strategies for patients with this type of spondylolisthesis.

This article provides a comprehensive evidence-based review of the available literature to support the management of degenerative low-grade spondylolisthesis.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:620-631. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180020.

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.

Radiological adjacent-segment degeneration in L4-5 spondylolisthesis: comparison between dynamic stabilization and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE Pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization has been an alternative to conventional lumbar fusion for the surgical management of low-grade spondylolisthesis. However, the true effect of dynamic stabilization on adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) remains undetermined. Authors of this study aimed to investigate the incidence of ASD and to compare the clinical outcomes of dynamic stabilization and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). METHODS The records of consecutive patients with Meyerding grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis who had undergone surgical management at L4-5 in the period from 2007 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgery performed: Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) group and MI-TLIF group. Pre- and postoperative radiological evaluations, including radiography, CT, and MRI studies, were compared. Adjacent discs were evaluated using 4 radiological parameters: instability (antero- or retrolisthesis), disc degeneration (Pfirrmann classification), endplate degeneration (Modic classification), and range of motion (ROM). Clinical outcomes, measured with the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, were also compared. RESULTS A total of 79 patients with L4-5 degenerative spondylolisthesis were included in the analysis. During a mean follow-up of 35.2 months (range 24-89 months), there were 56 patients in the DDS group and 23 in the MI-TLIF group. Prior to surgery, both groups were very similar in demographic, radiological, and clinical data. Postoperation, both groups had similarly significant improvement in clinical outcomes (VAS, ODI, and JOA scores) at each time point of evaluation. There was a lower chance of disc degeneration (Pfirrmann classification) of the adjacent discs in the DDS group than in the MI-TLIF group (17% vs 37%, p = 0.01). However, the DDS and MI-TLIF groups had similar rates of instability (15.2% vs 17.4%, respectively, p = 0.92) and endplate degeneration (1.8% vs 6.5%, p = 0.30) at the cranial (L3-4) and caudal (L5-S1) adjacent levels after surgery. The mean ROM in the cranial and caudal levels was also similar in the two groups. None of the patients required secondary surgery for any ASD (defined by radiological criteria). CONCLUSIONS The clinical improvements after DDS were similar to those following MI-TLIF for L4-5 Meyerding grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis at 3 years postoperation. According to radiological evaluations, there was a lower chance of disc degeneration in the adjacent levels of the patients who had undergone DDS. However, other radiological signs of ASD, including instability, endplate degeneration, and ROM, were similar between the two groups. Although none of the patients in the present series required secondary surgery, a longer follow-up and a larger number of patients would be necessary to corroborate the protective effect of DDS against ASD.

Current trends in the management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is a common disease of the degenerative spine, often associated with lumbar canal stenosis. However, the choice between the different medical or surgical treatments remains under debate.

Preference for surgical strategy is based on the functional symptoms, and when surgical treatment is selected, several questions should be posed and the surgical strategy adapted accordingly.

One of the main goals of surgery is to improve neurological symptoms. Therefore, radicular decompression may be necessary. Radicular decompression can be performed indirectly through interbody fusion or interspinous spacer. However, indirect decompression has some limits, and the most frequent technique is a posterior decompression with fusion.

Indeed, in cases of DS, associated fusion or dynamic stabilization are recommended to improve functional outcomes and prevent future destabilization. Risk factors for destabilization, such as anteroposterior and angular mobility, and significant disc height, have been discussed in the literature. When fusion is performed, osteosynthesis is often associated. It is essential to choose the length and position of the fusion according to the pelvic incidence and global alignment of the patient. It is possible to add interbody fusion to the posterolateral arthrodesis to improve graft area and stability, increase local lordosis and open foramina.

The most common surgical treatment for DS is posterior decompression with instrumented fusion. Nevertheless, some cases are more complicated and it is crucial to consider the patient’s general health status, symptoms and alignment when selecting the surgical strategy.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170050

Minimum ten-year follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization

Background

The Dynesys system remains the most widely implanted posterior non-fusion pedicle screw system. Various study designs used in investigations with good to excellent short- and mid-term results have been reported in the current literature. However, there is a lack of information concerning long-term outcomes following treatment for spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Methods

The aim of our study was twofold. Firstly, to assess whether the dynamic stabilization in situ with the Dynesys System without bone grafting provides enough stability to prevent progression of spondylolisthesis and secondarily to maintain significant clinical improvement in a long-term follow-up (FU). Therefore, the consecutive patients due to inclusion criterions underwent interlaminar decompression and stabilization with Dynesys instrumentation. Patients were evaluated clinically and radiologically after a minimum FU of 10 years.

Results

At FU, the mean low back pain (LBP) post-operatively and leg pain (LP) post-operatively on visual analog scale (VAS) and North American Spine Society (NASS) improved significantly (P<0.001) compared to preoperative examination. The mean value of NASS neurogenic symptoms (19.13% and 4.72%) and activity subscores were 23.13% and 10.74% respectively. In plain and functional radiographs the mean listhesis grade in neutral position was 11.11%, 11.8% in reclination and 11.63% in inclination. There were 17 and 8 patients with progressing degenerative osteochondrosis/listhesis at adjacent segments.

Conclusions

Decompression and single and double level dynamic in situ stabilization with the Dynesys System demonstrate good clinical and radiological long-term results in elderly patients.

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.

Does the Addition of a Dynamic Pedicle Screw to a Fusion Segment Prevent Adjacent Segment Pathology in the Lumbar Spine?

Study Design

Retrospective clinical cohort study.

Purpose

To investigate whether the combined use of dynamic pedicle screws and polyaxial pedicle screws was effective on adjacent segment pathology (ASP).

Overview of Literature

Various screw and rod models have been recently developed for preventing adjacent segment disease, and hybrid systems have been described along with posterior instrumentation in the fusion segment. In the literature, although the success of dynamic systems has been demonstrated in non-fusion posterior instrumentation, it remains unclear whether the addition of a screw-based dynamic system to a fusion segment would successfully prevent ASP in the long term.

Methods

The study included 101 patients who underwent surgery for degenerative spine diseases between 2007 and 2014 with lumbar stabilization that used either polyaxial pedicle screws alone or polyaxial pedicle screws plus dynamic stabilization screws (with hinged screw heads). These two patient groups were compared using retrospectively obtained postoperative new clinical findings, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and radiological data.

Results

The proportion of patients with ASP who were radiologically assessed was low (p <0.01) in the group that underwent lumbar stabilization along with dynamic screws. Treatment outcomes were clinically successful in both groups according to ODI and VAS scores, and no significant difference was determined between the groups in terms of clinical ASP (p >0.05).

Conclusions

Although the combined use of dynamic screws and the static system was radiologically found to be effective for preventing ASP in patients who underwent lumbar fusion with posterior instrumentation, it did not completely eliminate ASP or result in a significant improvement in clinical ASP.

The influence of L4-S1 Dynesys® dynamic stabilization versus fusion on lumbar motion and its relationship with lumbar degeneration: a retrospective study

Background

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of Dynesys® posterior dynamic stabilization (PDS) in the treatment of L4–S1 degenerative diseases and to assess the influence of postoperative motion on lumbar degeneration.

Methods

Included in this retrospective study were patients with L4–S1 degenerative disease who underwent fusion or PDS from September 2010 to September 2014. Clinical outcomes were assessed by preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Preoperative and postoperative X-rays assessed range of motion (ROM) of the non-surgical and surgical levels and whole lumbar. MRI assessed degeneration of non-surgical levels.

Results

A total of 56 consecutive patients were divided into two groups: group A, PDS, and group B, fusion. Patient demographics and baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. In both groups, there was a significant difference between preoperative and postoperative VAS and ODI scores (P < 0.05). However, there was a significant difference in a 6-month follow-up ODI between the two groups (P < 0.05). X-rays showed PDS patients partially maintained surgical level ROM and non-surgical level ROM increased less than in the fusion group. MRI showed adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in both groups, and patients whose preoperative L3–4 Pfirrmann classification was higher than grade 2 had more ASD than lower than grade 2.

Conclusion

PDS can maintain surgical level ROM and had less influence on whole and non-surgical level ROM. Following PDS, patients recovered faster and had a better lumbar function. It may be a better choice for multi-level lumbar degenerative diseases.

Surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis

Degenerative spondylolisthesis is a common pathology, often causing lumbar canal stenosis. There is, however, no strong consensus regarding the various medical and surgical treatments available. Surgery is indicated mainly for perceived functional impairment; when the indication is accepted, several questions determine the choice of surgical strategy. Improvement in neurological symptoms is one of the main treatment objectives. For this, it is useful to perform radicular decompression. Some authors recommend indirect decompression by interbody fusion (ALIF, TLIF, XLIF), others by means of an interspinous spacer but the most frequent technique is direct posterior decompression. In degenerative spondylolisthesis, functional results seem to be improved by associating stabilization to decompression, to prevent secondary destabilization. The following risk factors for destabilization are recognized: anteroposterior hypermobility, angular hypermobility and large disc height. Two stabilization techniques have been described: "dynamic" stabilization and (more frequently) fusion. Spinal instrumentation is frequently associated to fusion, in which case, it is essential for fusion position and length to take account of pelvic incidence and the patient's overall pattern of balance. Posterolateral fusion may be completed by interbody fusion (PLIF or TLIF). This has the theoretic advantage of increasing graft area and stability, restoring local lordosis and opening the foramina. Surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis usually consists in posterior release associated to instrumented fusion, but some cases can be more complex. It is essential for treatment planning to take account of the patient's general health status as well as symptomatology and global and segmental alignment.

Comparison of pedicle screw–based dynamic stabilization and fusion surgery in the treatment of radiographic adjacent-segment degeneration: a retrospective analysis of single L5–S1 degenerative spondylosis covering 4 years

OBJECTIVE

Pedicle screw–based dynamic spinal stabilization systems (PDSs) were devised to decrease, theoretically, the risk of long-term complications such as adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) after lumbar fusion surgery. However, to date, there have been few studies that fully proved that a PDS can reduce the risk of ASD. The purpose of this study was to examine whether a PDS can influence the incidence of ASD and to discuss the surgical coping strategy for L5–S1 segmental spondylosis with preexisting L4–5 degeneration with no related symptoms or signs.

METHODS

This study retrospectively compared 62 cases of L5–S1 segmental spondylosis in patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (n = 31) or K-Rod dynamic stabilization (n = 31) with a minimum of 4 years' follow-up. The authors measured the intervertebral heights and spinopelvic parameters on standing lateral radiographs and evaluated preexisting ASD on preoperative MR images using the modified Pfirrmann grading system. Radiographic ASD was evaluated according to the results of radiography during follow-up.

RESULTS

All 62 patients achieved remission of their neurological symptoms without surgical complications. The Kaplan-Meier curve and Cox proportional-hazards model showed no statistically significant differences between the 2 surgical groups in the incidence of radiographic ASD (p > 0.05). In contrast, the incidence of radiographic ASD was 8.75 times (95% CI 1.955–39.140; p = 0.005) higher in the patients with a preoperative modified Pfirrmann grade higher than 3 than it was in patients with a modified Pfirrmann grade of 3 or lower. In addition, no statistical significance was found for other risk factors such as age, sex, and spinopelvic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Pedicle screw–based dynamic spinal stabilization systems were not found to be superior to posterior lumbar interbody fusion in preventing radiographic ASD (L4–5) during the midterm follow-up. Preexisting ASD with a modified Pfirrmann grade higher than 3 was a risk factor for radiographic ASD. In the treatment of degenerative diseases of the lumbosacral spine, the authors found that both of these methods are feasible. Also, the authors believe that no extra treatment, other than observation, is needed for preexisting degeneration in L4–5 without any clinical symptoms or signs.

Dynamic stabilization for L4-5 spondylolisthesis: comparison with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with more than 2 years of follow-up

OBJECTIVE In the past decade, dynamic stabilization has been an emerging option of surgical treatment for lumbar spondylosis. However, the application of this dynamic construct for mild spondylolisthesis and its clinical outcomes remain uncertain. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for the management of single-level spondylolisthesis at L4-5. METHODS This study retrospectively reviewed 91 consecutive patients with Meyerding Grade I spondylolisthesis at L4-5 who were managed with surgery. Patients were divided into 2 groups: DDS and MI-TLIF. The DDS group was composed of patients who underwent standard laminectomy and the DDS system. The MI-TLIF group was composed of patients who underwent MI-TLIF. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at each time point of evaluation. Evaluations included radiographs and CT scans for every patient for 2 years after surgery. RESULTS A total of 86 patients with L4-5 spondylolisthesis completed the follow-up of more than 2 years and were included in the analysis (follow-up rate of 94.5%). There were 64 patients in the DDS group and 22 patients in the MI-TLIF group, and the overall mean follow-up was 32.7 months. Between the 2 groups, there were no differences in demographic data (e.g., age, sex, and body mass index) or preoperative clinical evaluations (e.g., visual analog scale back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores). The mean estimated blood loss of the MI-TLIF group was lower, whereas the operation time was longer compared with the DDS group (both p < 0.001). For both groups, clinical outcomes were significantly improved at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery compared with preoperative clinical status. Moreover, there were no differences between the 2 groups in clinical outcomes at each evaluation time point. Radiological evaluations were also similar and the complication rates were equally low in both groups. CONCLUSIONS At 32.7 months postoperation, the clinical and radiological outcomes of DDS were similar to those of MI-TLIF for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4-5. DDS might be an alternative to standard arthrodesis in mild lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, unlike fusion, dynamic implants have issues of wearing and loosening in the long term. Thus, the comparable results between the 2 groups in this study require longer follow-up to corroborate.

Enlargement of Neural Foramina and Dynamic Stabilization in Spondylolisthesis without Restoring the Alignment: Technical Note

It is well known that the cause of radiculopathy is the compression of the nerve root within the foramina which is narrowed secondary to sliding of the corpus and reduced disc height. In some patients, unroofing the foramen does not resolve this problem. We described a new decompression technique using pedicle removal and transpedicular dynamic instrumentation to stabilization the spine. We performed this operation in 2 patients and achieved very good results.

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

INTRODUCTION

Dynamic stabilization of the degenerated spine was invented to overcome the negative side effects of fusion surgery like adjacent segment degeneration. Amongst various different implants DSS(®) is a pedicle-based dynamic device for stabilizing the spine and preserving motion. Nearly no clinical data of the implant have been reported so far. The current analysis presents results from a single spine surgeon who has been using DSS(®) for the past 5 years and recorded all treatment and outcome data in the international Spine Tango registry.

MATERIALS/METHODS

From the prospectively documented overall patient pool 436 cases treated with DSS(®) could be identified. The analysis was enhanced with a mailing of COMI patient questionnaires for generating longer-term follow-ups up to 4 years.

RESULTS

387 patients (189 male, 198 female; mean age 67.3 years) with degenerative lumbar spinal disease including degenerative spondylolisthesis (6.1 %) could be evaluated. The type of degeneration was mainly spinal stenosis (89.9 %). After a mean follow-up of 1.94 years, the COMI score and NRS back and leg pain improved significantly and to a clinically relevant extent. The postoperative trend analysis could not determine a relevant deterioration of these outcomes until 4 years postoperative. 10 patients were revised (2.6 %) and the implant was removed; in most cases, a fusion was performed. Another 5 cases (1.3 %) had an extension of the dynamic stabilization system to the adjacent level. 84.2 % of patients rated that the surgery had helped a lot or had helped.

DISCUSSION

The results of this large consecutive series with a follow-up up to 4 years could demonstrate a good and stable clinical outcome after posterior dynamic stabilization with DSS(®). For degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine, this treatment seems to be a valid alternative to fusion surgery.

Short-term effects of a dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys) for multi-segmental lumbar disc herniation

PURPOSE

To determine the safety and short-term curative effects of internal fixation using a dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys) for multi-segmental lumbar disc herniation (ms-LDH) with the control group treated by posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

METHODS

Forty-five patients with ms-LDH were selected as study group treated with Dynesys and 40 patients as control group with PLIF. The surgical efficacy was evaluated by comparing the visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and the ROMs of the adjacent segment before and after surgery. The postoperative complications related to the implants were identified.

RESULTS

All patients were followed up for an average duration of over 30 months. Dynesys stabilization resulted in significantly higher preservation of motion at the index level (p < 0.001), and significantly less (p < 0.05) hypermobility at the adjacent segments. VAS for back and leg pain and ODI improved significantly (p < 0.05) with both the methods, but there was no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The non-fusion fixation system Dynesys is safe and effective regarding short-term curative effects for the treatment of ms-LDH.

Comparison between posterior dynamic stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative disc disease: a prospective cohort study

Background

Few studies compared radiographic and clinical outcomes between posterior dynamic stabilization (PDS) and posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion (PLIF) in treating degenerative disc disease (DDD).

Methods

A total of 176 consecutive patients who underwent posterior instrumented spinal surgery for degenerative disc disease between January 2007 and January 2009 were prospectively divided into two groups—PDS and PLIF. All patients included in the analysis were followed up for 3 years. Demographic distribution, perioperative complications, and radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

The amount of intraoperative blood loss and drained volume was significantly greater in the PLIF group compared with the PDS group (881.1 ml versus 737.4 ml, p = 0.004). The length of stay of patients who had PLIF surgery (20.9 days) was significantly longer (p = 0.033) than that of patients who underwent PDS surgery (18.9 days). Patients with PLIF surgery had higher total costs than those with PDS surgery (US$12826.8 versus US$11654.5, p = 0.002). No statistically significant differences existed in back visual analogue scale (VAS), leg VAS, or Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores between the PDS and PLIF groups of patients at each time point.

Conclusions

Compared with PLIF, PDS have advantages on blood loss, length of stay in hospital, total charges, and radiographic outcomes, but no advantages on leg and back VAS or ODI scores. High-quality randomized controlled trials are still required in the future.

Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: cohort of 670 patients, and proposal of a new classification

Degenerative spondylolisthesis is common in adults. No consensus is available about the analysis or surgical treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. In 2013, the French Society for Spine Surgery (Societe francaise de chirurgie du rachis) held a round table discussion to develop a classification system and assess the outcomes of the main surgical treatments. A multicentre study was conducted in nine centres located throughout France and Luxembourg. We established a database on a prospective cohort of 260 patients included between July 2011 and July 2012 and a retrospective cohort of 410 patients included in personal databases between 2009 and 2013. For patients in the prospective cohort clinical assessments were performed before and after surgery using the self-administered functional impact questionnaire AQS, SF12, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Type of treatment and complications were recorded. Antero-posterior and lateral full-length radiographs were used to measure lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and percentage of vertebral slippage. Mean follow-up was 10 months. We started a randomised clinical trial comparing posterior fusion of degenerative spondylolisthesis with versus without an inter-body cage. 60 patients were included, 30 underwent 180° fusion and 30 underwent 360° fusion using an inter-body cage implanted via a transforaminal approach. We evaluated the quality of neural decompression achieved by minimally invasive fusion technique. In a subgroup of 24 patients computed tomography (CT) was performed before and after the procedure and then compared. Mean age was 67 years and 73% of degenerative spondylolisthesis were located at L4-L5 level. The many surgical procedures performed in the prospective cohort were posterior fusion (39%), posterior fusion combined with inter-body fusion (36%), dynamic stabilization (15%), anterior lumbar fusion (8%), and postero-lateral fusion without exogenous material (2%). Peri-operative complications of any severity occurred in 17% of patients. The AQS, ODI and SF12 scores were improved significantly at follow-up. We found no differences in clinical improvements across surgical procedure types. Circumferential fusion (360°) was associated with greater relief of nerve root pain and better lordosis recovery after 1 year compared to postero-lateral fusion (180°). Post-operative CT images showed effective decompression of nervous structures after minimally invasive fusion. Longer follow-up of our patients is needed to assess the stability of the results of the various surgical procedures. Based on a radiological analysis, the authors propose a new classification with five types of degenerative spondylolisthesis: type 1, SL>5° and LL>PI-10°; type 2, SL<5° and LL>PI-10°; type 3, LL<PI-10°; type 4, LL<PI-10° and compensated sagittal balance with PT>25°; and type 5, sagittal imbalance with SVA>4 cm.

PROOF LEVEL

IV Observational cohort study. Retrospective review of prospectively collected outcome data.

A new device used in the restoration of kinematics after total facet arthroplasty

Facet degeneration can lead to spinal stenosis and instability, and often requires stabilization. Interbody fusion is commonly performed, but it can lead to adjacent-segment disease. Dynamic posterior stabilization was performed using a total facet arthroplasty system. The total facet arthroplasty system was originally intended to restore the natural motion of the posterior stabilizers, but follow-up studies are lacking due to limited clinical use. We studied the first 14 cases (long-term follow-up) treated with this new device in our clinic. All patients were diagnosed with lumbar stenosis due to hypertrophy of the articular facets on one to three levels (maximum). Disk space was of normal height. The design of this implant allows its use only at levels L3-L4 and L4-L5. We implanted nine patients at the L4-L5 level and four patients at level L3-L4. Postoperative follow-up of the patients was obtained for an average of 3.7 years. All patients reported persistent improvement of symptoms, visual analog scale score, and Oswestry Disability Index score. Functional scores and dynamic radiographic imaging demonstrated the functional efficacy of this new implant, which represents an alternative technique and a new approach to dynamic stabilization of the vertebral column after interventions for spine decompression. The total facet arthroplasty system represents a viable option for dynamic posterior stabilization after spinal decompression. For the observed follow-up, it preserved motion without significant complications or apparent intradisk or adjacent-disk degeneration.

[Pedicular dynamic stabilization system. Functional outcomes and implant-related complications for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disc disease with a minimum follow-up of 4 years]

INTRODUCTION

The Dynesys(®) system is a non-fusion pedicular dynamic stabilization system. The aim of our study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes in patients with degenerative disc disease and/or stenosis, and to measure the prevalence of screw loosening and breakage after 4 years of follow up.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients who underwent surgery with Dynesys(®) system in 2008 were reviewed. The surgery was performed in cases of low back pain of more than 6 months duration and a positive MRI for degenerative disc disease and/or stenosis.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients (11 females, 11 males) with a mean age of 44.40 ± 11 years were included, 20 patients (91%) underwent Dynesys(®) without any associated decompression maneuver. The evaluation of back and leg pain (0-10mm) showed a mean decrease of 2.4 ± 2.06 mm (P=.0001). The preoperative value of the Oswestry disability index was 52.36 ± 16.56% (severe functional limitation). After surgery, this value was 34.27 ± 17.87% (moderate functional limitation) (P=.001) with a decrease of 18.09 ± 16.03% (P=.001). A total of 4 (18%) patients showed signs of loosening screws. One patient (4.5%) had a screw breakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery with Dynesys(®) shows favorable long term clinical results, however the range of improvement in our series is lower than those reported in other studies. Comparative studies between Dynesys(®) and decompression need to be performed in order to isolate the benefit of the dynamic stabilization system. Implant-related complications are not uncommon.

Short term outcome of posterior dynamic stabilization system in degenerative lumbar diseases

BACKGROUND

Decompression and fusion is considered as the 'gold standard' for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases, however, many disadvantages have been reported in several studies, recently like donor site pain, pseudoarthrosis, nonunion, screw loosening, instrumentation failure, infection, adjacent segment disease (ASDis) and degeneration. Dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys) avoids many of these disadvantages. This system is made up of pedicle screws, polyethylene terephthalate cords, and polycarbonate urethane spacers to stabilize the functional spinal unit and preserve the adjacent motion after surgeries. This was a retrospective cohort study to compare the effect of Dynesys for treating degenerative lumbar diseases with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) based on short term followup.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy five consecutive patients of lumbar degenerative disease operated between October 2010 and November 2012 were studied with a minimum followup of 2 years. Patients were divided into two groups according to the different surgeries. 30 patients underwent decompression and implantation of Dynesys in two levels (n = 29) or three levels (n = 1) and 45 patients underwent PLIF in two levels (n = 39) or three levels (n = 6). Clinical and radiographic outcomes between two groups were reviewed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients (male:17, female:13) with a mean age of 55.96 ± 7.68 years were included in Dynesys group and the PLIF group included 45 patients (male:21, female:24) with a mean age of 54.69 ± 3.26 years. The average followup in Dynesys group and PLIF group was 2.22 ± 0.43 year (range 2-3.5 year) and 2.17 ± 0.76 year (range 2-3 year), respectively. Dynesys group showed a shorter operation time (141.06 ± 11.36 min vs. 176.98 ± 6.72 min, P < 0.001) and less intraoperative blood loss (386.76 ± 19.44 ml vs. 430.11 ± 24.72 ml, P < 0.001). For Dynesys group, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain improved from 6.87 ± 0.80 to 2.92 ± 0.18 and 6.99 ± 0.81 to 3.25 ± 0.37, (both P < 0.001) and for PLIF, VAS for back and leg pain also improved significantly (6.97 ± 0.84-3.19 ± 0.19 and 7.26 ± 0.76-3.56 ± 0.38, both P < 0.001). Significant improvement was found at final followup in both groups in Oswestry disability index (ODI) score (both P < 0.001). Besides, Dynesys group showed a greater improvement in ODI and VAS back and leg pain scores compared with the PLIF group (P < 0.001, P = 0.009 and P = 0.031, respectively). For radiological, height of the operated level was found increased in both groups (both P < 0.001), but there was no difference between two groups (P = 0.93). For range of motion (ROM) of operated level, significant decrease was found in both groups (P < 0.001), but Dynesys showed a higher preservation of motion at the operative levels (P < 0.001). However, no significant difference was found in the percentage change of ROM of adjacent levels between Dynesys and PLIF (0.74 ± 8.92% vs. 0.92 ± 4.52%, P = 0.91). Some patients suffered from degeneration of adjacent intervertebral disc at final followup, but there was no significant difference in adjacent intervertebral disc degeneration between two groups (P = 0.71). Moreover, there were no differences in complications between Dynesys and PLIF (P = 0.90), although the incidence of complication in Dynesys was lower than PLIF (16.67% vs. 17.78%).

CONCLUSION

Dynamic stabilization system treating lumbar degenerative disease showed clinical benefits with motion preservation of the operated segments, but does not have the significant advantage on motion preservation at adjacent segments, to avoid the degeneration of adjacent intervertebral disk.

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.