Dynesys Fixation for Lumbar Spine Degeneration

Overview

Journal Neurosurg Rev

Specialty Neurosurgery

Date 2007 Oct 2

PMID 17906883

Citations 28

Authors

Matthias Bothmann

Erich Kast

Gerald Jens Boldt

Joachim Oberle

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The dynamic fixation system Dynesys is utilized in the last 10 years for treatment of degenerative segmental disease of the lumbar spine. Dynesys is a semi-rigid fixation system that allows minimal lengthening and shortening between two segmental pedicle screws as opposed to a rigid metal bar. Thus, the system is regarded to maintain stability and near physiological motion patterns of the lumbar spine. The theoretical advantage of this system is to stabilize the treated segment and to prevent adjacent segment degeneration. The goal of this prospective trial was to evaluate clinical, radiographic, and computed tomography (CT) scan outcomes in 54 consecutive cases. Postoperative complications are discussed in detail. Forty cases were recruited with a mean follow-up of 16 months (range, 12 to 37). Postoperative pain scores (Hannover Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire and VAS for back and leg pain) improved in 29 cases (73%) and was best when dynamic fusion was combined with nerve root decompression. Outcome data were not superior to conventional rigid fusion systems and had a considerable number of complications requiring revision surgery in 27.5% of cases.

Citing Articles

Innovative technologies in thoracolumbar and lumbar spine surgery failing to reach standard of care: state-of-art review.

Katiyar P, Malka M, Reyes J, Lombardi J, Lenke L, Sardar Z Spine Deform. 2024; 12(6):1521-1527.

PMID: 38795313 DOI: 10.1007/s43390-024-00898-9.

Comparison of Cortical Bone Trajectory to Pedicle-Based Dynamic Stabilization: An Analysis of 291 Patients.

Chang C, Chang H, Ko C, Wu C, Kuo Y, Tu T Neurospine. 2023; 20(1):308-316.

PMID: 37016878 PMC: 10080437. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2244888.444.

Biomechanical Effect of Hybrid Dynamic Stabilization Implant on the Segmental Motion and Intradiscal Pressure in Human Lumbar Spine.

Hsiao C, Tsai Y, Yen C, Li Y, Hsiao H, Tu Y Bioengineering (Basel). 2023; 10(1).

PMID: 36671603 PMC: 9854656. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10010031.

Biomechanical feasibility of semi-rigid stabilization and semi-rigid lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element study.

Wong C, Hu H, Kao L, Liu C, Chen K, Huang K BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022; 23(1):10.

PMID: 34980068 PMC: 8725514. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04958-3.

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

Angelini A, Baracco R, Procura A, Nena U, Ruggieri P Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; 11(10).

PMID: 34679589 PMC: 8534523. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11101891.

References

Atlas S, KELLER R, Chang Y, Deyo R, Singer D . Surgical and nonsurgical management of sciatica secondary to a lumbar disc herniation: five-year outcomes from the Maine Lumbar Spine Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(10):1179-87. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200105150-00017. View

Glaser J, Stanley M, Sayre H, Woody J, Found E, Spratt K . A 10-year follow-up evaluation of lumbar spine fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(13):1390-5. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000067112.15753.AD. View

Hopf C, Heeckt H, Beske C . [Indication, biomechanics and early results of artificial disk replacement]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2004; 142(2):153-8. DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-816273. View

Moller H, Hedlund R . Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis--a prospective randomized study: part 1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(13):1711-5. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200007010-00016. View

Ahn S, Ahn M, Byun W . Effect of the transligamentous extension of lumbar disc herniations on their regression and the clinical outcome of sciatica. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(4):475-80. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200002150-00014. View

Lindsey D, Swanson K, Fuchs P, Hsu K, Zucherman J, Yerby S . The effects of an interspinous implant on the kinematics of the instrumented and adjacent levels in the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(19):2192-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000084877.88192.8E. View

Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Lambiris E . The role of rigid vs. dynamic instrumentation for stabilization of the degenerative lumbosacral spine. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004; 91:457-61. View

Cakir B, Ulmar B, Koepp H, Huch K, Puhl W, Richter M . [Posterior dynamic stabilization as an alternative for dorso-ventral fusion in spinal stenosis with degenerative instability]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2003; 141(4):418-24. DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-41568. View

Schmoelz W, Huber J, Nydegger T, Dipl-Ing , Claes L, Wilke H . Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003; 16(4):418-23. DOI: 10.1097/00024720-200308000-00015. View

10.

Zucherman J, Hsu K, Hartjen C, Mehalic T, Implicito D, Martin M . A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(12):1351-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000166618.42749.d1. View

11.

Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A . 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(23):2521-32; discussion 2532-4. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200112010-00002. View

12.

Putzier M, Schneider S, Funk J, Tohtz S, Perka C . The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse: nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(5):E109-14. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000154630.79887.ef. View

13.

Sengupta D, Mulholland R . Fulcrum assisted soft stabilization system: a new concept in the surgical treatment of degenerative low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(9):1019-29. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000160986.39171.4d. View

14.

Freudiger S, Dubois G, Lorrain M . Dynamic neutralisation of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1999; 119(3-4):127-32. DOI: 10.1007/s004020050375. View

15.

Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A . Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002; 27(11):1131-41. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200206010-00002. View

16.

GIBSON J, Grant I, Waddell G . The Cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(17):1820-32. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199909010-00012. View

17.

Schwarzenbach O, Berlemann U, Stoll T, Dubois G . Posterior dynamic stabilization systems: DYNESYS. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005; 36(3):363-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2005.03.001. View

18.

Putzier M, Schneider S, Funk J, Perka C . [Application of a dynamic pedicle screw system (DYNESYS) for lumbar segmental degenerations - comparison of clinical and radiological results for different indications]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2004; 142(2):166-73. DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-818781. View

19.

Sengupta D . Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am. 2004; 35(1):43-56. DOI: 10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00087-7. View

20.

Kirkaldy-Willis W, Farfan H . Instability of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982; (165):110-23. View