Dynesys dynamic stabilization system versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of lumbar degenerative disease

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2014.44.012

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion is a typical therapeutic method of lumbar degenerative disease. Present studies suggested that adjacent segment degeneration occurs after fusion. Recently, more and more scholars paid attention to the development of non-fusion of the spine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical effects of Dynesys dynamic stabilization system fixation and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS: From July 2009 to July 2011, clinical data of 56 patients with lumbar degenerative disease were retrospectively analyzed. There were 28 cases of Dynesys dynamic stabilization system fixation, and 28 cases of posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Operation time, bleeding volume, and postoperative hospitalization time were compared in both groups. Visual analog scale was used to assess pain. Oswestry disability index was utilized to evaluate clinical effects.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: A total of 56 patients were followed up for 18-24 months. Visual analog scale and Oswestry disability index scores were significantly improved at 12 months after treatment in both groups (P < 0.01). Significant differences in operation time, bleeding volume, and postoperative hospitalization time were

detected between both groups (P < 0.01). Dynesys dynamic stabilization system group was better than posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. Range of motion was better in the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system group than in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group (P < 0.01). During follow-up, nail rope system and polyester sleeve loose were not detectable in the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system group. These results verified that compared with posterior lumbar interbody fusion, Dynesys dynamic stabilization system for lumbar degenerative diseases has a high safety and small trauma, and can keep advantages of a fixed segment, and exert a certain effect on degeneration of intervertebral disc in the adjacent segment.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

全文链接：

Key words: internal fixators, spinal fusion, lumbar vertebrae, pain measurement

CLC Number:

R318

Peng Chao, He Zhi-yong, Mu Jian-song, Lan Hai, Li Kai-nan. Dynesys dynamic stabilization system versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of lumbar degenerative disease[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2014, 18(44): 7117-7121.

Figures/Tables 5

References

[1]Dickerman RD, Reynolds AS, Zigler J, et al. Adjacent-segment degeneration. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009; 10(2):177.
[2]Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Hedges SD. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion:a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop. 1999; 28(6):336-340.
[3]Rohlmann A, Burra NK, Zander L, et al. Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine:a finite element analysis. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(8):1223-1231.
[4]Gaines RW. The use of pedicle-screw internal fixation for the operative treatment of spinal disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82A(10):1458-1476.
[5]Fairbank JC.Oswestry disability index.J Neurosurg Spine. 2014; 20(2):239-241.
[6]Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet. 1974;2(7889): 1127-1131.
[7]杨惠林,唐天驷.腰椎不稳与腰椎管狭窄专题研讨会纪要[J].中华骨科杂志,1994,14(1):60-61.
[8]Schwarzenbach O, Berlemann U, Stoll T. Posterior dynamic stabilisation systems:DYNESYS. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005; 36(3):363-372.
[9]Dubois G. Dynamic stabilization with the Dynesys system and the dynamic transition option DTO implant:philosophy- concept-surgical technique. Interact Surg. 2008;3(4):239-244.
[10]Schmoelz W,Huber JF, Nydegger L, et al. Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load beating of a bridged disc:an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(8):1276-1285.
[11]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel nonfusion system. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(2): 170-178.
[12]陈博来,许鸿智,林颖.动态稳定系统(Dynesys)的临床研究[J］.脊柱外科杂志,2010,8(6):372-376.
[13]张劲松, 杨述华,许伟华,等.减压结合Dynesys 动态稳定治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症[J].中国矫形外科杂志, 2010, 21(11) : 881-883.
[14]Legaye J. Unfavorable influence of the dynamic neutralization system on sagittal balance of the spine. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2005;91:542-550.
[15]Lawhorne YW, Girardi FP, Mina CA, et al. Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: potential impact of dynamic stabilization based on imaging analysis. Eur Spine J. 2009;18: 815-822.
[16]Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B. Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2006;31(4):442-449.
[17]Greb D, Benini A, Junge A. Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid xation system for the lumbar spine:surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 5O cases after all average of 2 years. Spine. 2005;30(3):324-331.
[18]Haddad B, Makki D, Konan S, et al. Dynesys dynamic stabilization:less good outcome than lumbar fusion at 4-year follow-up. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013;79(1):97-103.
[19]Yu SW, Yang SC, Ma CH, et al. Comparison of Dynesys posterior stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spinal stenosis L4L5. Acta Orthop Belg. 2012;78(2): 230-239.