Search

Objective The Isobar TTL dynamic fixation system has demonstrated favorable outcomes in the short‐term treatment of lumbar degenerative disc diseases (LDDs). However, there is a paucity of extensive research on the long‐term effects of this system on LDDs. This study aimed to evaluate the long‐term clinical and radiological outcomes of patients with LDDs who underwent treatment utilizing the Isobar TTL dynamic fixation system. Methods The study analyzed the outcomes of 40 patients with LDDs who underwent posterior lumbar decompression and received single‐segment Isobar TTL dynamic internal fixation at our hospital between June 2010 and December 2016. The evaluation of clinical therapeutic effect involved assessing postoperative pain levels using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI), both before surgery, 3 months after, and the final follow‐up. To determine the preservation of functional motion in dynamically stable segments, we measured the range of motion (ROM) and disc height of stabilized and adjacent segments preoperatively and during the final follow‐up. Additionally, we investigated the occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Results Forty patients were evaluated, with an average age of 44.65 years and an average follow‐up period of 79.37 months. Fourteen patients belonged to the spondylolisthesis group, while the remaining 26 were categorized under the stenosis or herniated disc group. The preoperative ROM of the stabilized segment exhibited a significant reduction from 8.15° ± 2.77° to 5.00° ± 1.82° at the final follow‐up (p 0.05). Conclusion The Isobar TTL dynamic fixation system is an effective treatment for LDDs, improving pain relief, quality of life (QoL) and maintaining stabilized segmental motion. It has demonstrated excellent long‐term clinical and radiographic results.

Objective: The Isobar TTL dynamic fixation system has demonstrated favorable outcomes in the short‐term treatment of lumbar degenerative disc diseases (LDDs). However, there is a paucity of extensive research on the long‐term effects of this system on LDDs. This study aimed to evaluate the long‐term clinical and radiological outcomes of patients with LDDs who underwent treatment utilizing the Isobar TTL dynamic fixation system. Methods: The study analyzed the outcomes of 40 patients with LDDs who underwent posterior lumbar decompression and received single‐segment Isobar TTL dynamic internal fixation at our hospital between June 2010 and December 2016. The evaluation of clinical therapeutic effect involved assessing postoperative pain levels using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI), both before surgery, 3 months after, and the final follow‐up. To determine the preservation of functional motion in dynamically stable segments, we measured the range of motion (ROM) and disc height of stabilized and adjacent segments preoperatively and during the final follow‐up. Additionally, we investigated the occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Results: Forty patients were evaluated, with an average age of 44.65 years and an average follow‐up period of 79.37 months. Fourteen patients belonged to the spondylolisthesis group, while the remaining 26 were categorized under the stenosis or herniated disc group. The preoperative ROM of the stabilized segment exhibited a significant reduction from 8.15° ± 2.77° to 5.00° ± 1.82° at the final follow‐up (p < 0.001). In contrast, there was a slight elevation in the ROM of the adjacent segment during the final follow‐up, increasing from 7.68° ± 2.25° before surgery to 9.36° ± 1.98° (p < 0.001). The intervertebral space height (IH) in the stabilized segment exhibited a significant increase from 10.56 ± 1.99 mm before surgery to 11.39 ± 1.90 mm at the one‐week postoperative follow‐up (p < 0.001). Conversely, there was a notable decrease in the IH of the adjacent segment from 11.09 ± 1.82 mm preoperatively to 10.86 ± 1.79 mm at the one‐week follow‐up after surgery (p < 0.001). The incidence of ASD was 15% (6/40) after an average follow‐up period of 79.37 months, with a rate of 15.38% (4/26) in the stenosis or herniated disc group and 14.29% (2/14) in the spondylolisthesis group; however, no statistically significant difference was observed in the occurrence of ASD among these groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The Isobar TTL dynamic fixation system is an effective treatment for LDDs, improving pain relief, quality of life (QoL) and maintaining stabilized segmental motion. It has demonstrated excellent long‐term clinical and radiographic results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims The Dynesys-Transition-Optima (DTO) hybrid system was designed to achieve arthrodesis and stabilization in patients with lumbar degeneration. Satisfactory outcomes were demonstrated previously. However, no study has evaluated the effects of using the DTO system in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or stenosis. Methods This retrospective study included 35 consecutive patients with multilevel lumbar degeneration with or without spondylolisthesis who underwent surgery using the DTO system. Imaging studies included pre- and postoperative radiography, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography. The clinical outcomes were measured by Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. Results Thirty patients (85.7%) with a mean age of 61.9 years completed the follow-up, with a mean duration of 35.1 months. There were 21 patients in the spondylolisthesis group and 9 in the stenosis group. The spondylolisthesis group had worse functional scores than the stenosis group preoperatively. After DTO surgery, all patients showed significant improvements in clinical outcomes, including VAS for back and leg pain, ODI, and JOA scores (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. At a 2-year follow-up, lumbar alignment was well maintained in both groups (p = 0.116). There were no significant differences in lumbar alignment between the 2 groups. Conclusion During a follow-up period of over 2 years, both patients with spondylolisthesis and those with stenosis showed improvements and similar disability and pain scores after surgery using the DTO system. Lumbar alignment was also well maintained.

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

Dynesys (Dynamic Neutralization System) was designed to overcome the shortcomings of fusion. The Dynesys top loading (DTL) system is a new alternative Dynesys system that can be applied via a minimally invasive procedure. This study aimed to ascertain whether DTL is a suitable device for motion preservation and prevention of instability, and to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between DTL and Dynesys. In this study, 12 patients were treated with Dynesys and 21 patients were treated with DTL. Back and leg pain were evaluated using the visual analog scale. The Oswestry Disability Index was used to evaluate the patients' function. Range of motion (ROM) at the operative level and for the whole lumbar spine was measured pre- and postoperatively. The length of wound, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and operation duration were also compared. All patients were followed up for 12–76 months. Scores on the visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index were significantly improved postoperatively. The median ROM of the whole spine and index level ROM in all patients showed 12.5% and 79.6% loss, respectively. The DTL group exhibited significantly better results in terms of blood loss, wound length, and operation duration, in addition to early ambulation. In conclusion, Dynesys and DTL are semirigid fixation systems that can significantly improve clinical symptoms and signs. Our results suggested that DTL was better than Dynesys as a result of it being a minimally invasive procedure. However, further study with large sample sizes and longer follow-up durations is required to validate the effects of these dynamic stabilizers.

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, = 0.004). The length of stay of patients who had PLIF p surgery (20.9 days) was significantly longer ( = 0.033) than that of patients who underwent PDS surgery (18.9 days). p 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Dynesys system provides stability for destabilized spines while preserving segmental motion. However, clinical studies have demonstrated that the Dynesys system does not prevent adjacent segment disease. Moreover, biomechanical studies have revealed that the stiffness of the Dynesys system is comparable to rigid fixation. Our previous studies showed that adjusting the cord pretension of the Dynesys system alleviates stress on the adjacent level during flexion. We also demonstrated that altering the stiffness of Dynesys system spacers can alleviate stress on the adjacent level during extension of the intact spine. In the present study, we hypothesized that omitting the cord preload and changing the stiffness of the Dynesys system spacers would abate stress shielding on adjacent spinal segments. Methods: Finite element models were developed for - intact spine (INT), facetectomy and laminectomy at L3-4 (DEC), intact spine with Dynesys system (IntDyWL), decompressed spine with Dynesys system (DecDyWL), decompressed spine with Dynesys system without cord preload (DecDyNL), and decompressed spine with Dynesys system assembled using spacers that were 0.8 times the standard diameter without cord pretension (DecDyNL0.8). These models were subjected to hybrid control for flexion, extension, axial rotation; and lateral bending. Results: The greatest decreases in range of motion (ROM) at the L3-4 level occurred for axial rotation and lateral bending in the IntDyWL model and for flexion and extension in the DecDyWL model. The greatest decreases in disc stress occurred for extension and lateral bending in the IntDyWL model and for flexion in the DecDyWL model. The greatest decreases in facet contact force occurred for extension and lateral bending in the DecDyNL model and for axial rotation in the DecDyWL model. The greatest increases in ROMs at L2-3 level occurred for flexion, axial rotation and lateral bending in IntDyWL model and for extension in the DecDyNL model. The greatest increases in disc stress occurred for flexion, axial rotation and lateral bending in the IntDyWL model and for extension in the DecDyNL model. The greatest increases in facet contact force occurred for extension and lateral bending in the DecDyNL model and for axial rotation in the IntDyWL model. Conclusions: The results reveals that removing the Dynesys system cord pretension attenuates the ROMs, disc stress, and facet joint contact forces at adjacent levels during flexion and axial rotation. Removing cord pretension together with softening spacers abates stress shielding for adjacent segment during four different moments, and it provides enough security while not jeopardizes the stability of spine during axial rotation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Screw loosening, which is a major problem in dynamic systems, can be easily overcome with 2-stage surgery. In this article, the clinical and radiological results of patients undergoing dynamic stabilization with a Dynesys device in 2 stages are discussed., Methods: A total of 10 male and 13 female adult patients were included in this single-center retrospective study conducted between 2018 and 2021. The mean age of the patients was 65.6 years. All of the patients had pain complaints that affected their daily lives. Bone density T scores were determined with the dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry method before patients were admitted for surgery. In the first surgery, Dynesys system pedicle screws were inserted. After 6 months of osteointegration, Dynesys system spacers and elastic bandages were placed. Preoperative, early postoperative, and late postoperative visual analog pain scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were determined and statistically compared., Results: Patients were followed for an average of 30 months. Complications and recurrence were not observed. Neurological deficits were not observed after patients recovered from anesthesia. Significant improvement was observed in the ODI and VAS parameters in the preoperative (ODI: 66.2%, VAS: 7.8), early postoperative (ODI: 20.3%, VAS: 2.4), and late postoperative (ODI: 6.8% and VAS: 1.1) periods. Symptomatic improvement was seen in all patients. No screw breakage or loosening was detected by radiological evaluation in any of the patients during the 2-year follow-up period., Conclusions: In our experience, the insufficiency of the proximal and distal end screws is eliminated when 2 stages of dynamic system stabilizations are completed after osteointegration of the screws., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Copyright © 2022 ISASS. To see more or order reprints or permissions, see http://ijssurgery.com.)

Introduction: Dynamic stabilization of the spine was developed as an alternative to rigid fusion in chronic back pain to reduce the risk of adjacent segment degeneration. Dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys, Zimmer CH) is one of the most popular systems available, but some midterm studies show revision rates as high as 30 %. Some late infectious complications in our patients prompted us to review them systematically. Propionibacterium recently has been shown to cause subtle infections of prosthetic material. Materials and methods: Here, we report on a consecutive series of 50 Dynesys implants. In a median follow-up of 51 months (range 0-91), we identified 12 infectious and 11 non-infectious complications necessitating reoperation or removal of the implant in 17 patients. Results: Material infections occurred after a median of 52 months (2-77) and were due to Propionibacterium alone ( n = 4) or in combination ( n = 3) in seven out of 11 patients. Clinical presentation combines new or increasing pain associated with signs of screw loosening on conventional X-rays; however, as many as 73.5 % of patients present some degree of screw loosening without being at all symptomatic of infection. Conclusion: The high rate of late infections with low-grade germs and the frequency of screw loosening signs made us suspect a lack of integration at the bone-screw interface. Surgeons should be suspicious if the patient presents a combination of new or increasing pain and signs of screw loosening, and aggressive revision is recommended in these cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with multisegmental degenerative disc disease (DDD) resistant to conservative therapy are typically treated with either fusion or non-fusion surgical techniques. The two techniques can be applied at adjacent levels using Dynesys® (Zimmer GmbH, Winterthur, Switzerland) implants in a segment-by-segment treatment of multiple level DDD. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome of patients treated using this segment-by-segment application of Dynesys in some levels as a non-fusion device and in other segments in combination with a PLIF as a fusion device. A consecutive case series is reported. The sample included 16 females and 15 males with a mean age of 53.6 years (range 26.3–76.4 years). Mean follow-up time was 39 months (range 24–90 months). Preoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI), back- and leg-pain scores (VAS) were compared to postoperative status. Fusion success and system failure were assessed by an independent reviewer who analyzed AP and lateral X-rays. Back pain improved from 7.3 ± 1.7 to 3.4 ± 2.7 ( p < 0.000002), leg pain from 6.0 ± 2.9 to 2.3 ± 2.9 ( p < 0.00006), and ODI from 51.6 ± 13.2% to 28.7 ± 18.0% ( p < 0.00001). Screw loosening occurred in one of a total of 222 implanted screws (0.45%). The results indicate that segment-by-segment treatment with Dynesys® in combination with interbody fusion is technically feasible, safe, and effective for the surgical treatment of multilevel DDD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dynamic stabilisation system for the spine (Dynesys) relies on titanium screw purchase within the pedicle. Decision on osseointegration is important especially when the patient becomes symptomatic following initial good outcome. Loose screws make the construct non-functional especially in symptomatic patients. Removal of Dynesys may become necessary to control patient’s symptoms. In this study, we report interobserver reliability of X-ray for the interpretation of Dynesys pedicle screw osseointegration based on the diagnosis of “halo zone” and “Double halo zones” surrounding loose screw. Lumbar spine X-ray images of 50 patients in two views (AP and lateral) were selected from a random sample of 420 Dynesys patients. The total number of pedicle screws reviewed in this study was 260. The investigators (observers) were asked to state whether or not each pedicle screw is loose using “radiolucent zone sign”. Observers were two expert orthopaedic spine consultant surgeons and one expert consultant radiologist and four specialist registrars (SpR) in orthopaedics and radiology. SpR assessments were repeated after 4 months with instructions to use “double-halo sign” for loose screws. The evaluation of interobserver agreement was performed by obtaining a Kappa (K) index. Using “radiolucent zone sign”, Kappa Index (KI) among three consultants was 0.2198 at 95% CI (0.0520, 0.4916) while for all of the seven assessors (3 consultants and 4 SpR), KI was 0.1462 at 95% CI (0.0332, 0.2592). The use of “double-halo sign” was associated with KI of 0.666 at 95% CI (SE 0.83) among all of the 4 SpR. Based on plain X-ray “radiolucent zone sign”, the inter-observer reliability of detecting loose Dynesys pedicle screw was poor (Kappa index of 0.2). On the other hand, using plain X-ray “double-halo sign” was associated with improved inter-observer reliability and validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of non-fusion stabilization is to reduce the mobility of the spine segment to less than that of the intact spine specimen, while retaining some residual motion. Several in vitro studies have been conducted on a dynamic system currently available for clinical use (Dynesys®). Under pure moment loading, a dependency of the biomechanical performance on spacer length has been demonstrated; this variability in implant properties is removed with a modular concept incorporating a discrete flexible element. An in vitro study was performed to compare the kinematic and stabilizing properties of a modular dynamic lumbar stabilization system with those of Dynesys, under the influence of an axial preload. Six human cadaver spine specimens (L1–S1) were tested in a spine loading apparatus. Flexibility measurements were performed by applying pure bending moments of 8 Nm, about each of the three principal anatomical axes, with a simultaneously applied axial preload of 400 N. Specimens were tested intact, and following creation of a defect at L3–L4, with the Dynesys implant, with the modular implant and, after removal of the hardware, the injury state. Segmental range of motion (ROM) was reduced for flexion–extension and lateral bending with both implants. Motion in flexion was reduced to less than 20% of the intact level, in extension to approximately 40% and in lateral bending a motion reduction to less than 40% was measured. In torsion, the total ROM was not significantly different from that of the intact level. The expectations for a flexible posterior stabilizing implant are not fulfilled. The assumption that a device which is particularly compliant in bending allows substantial intersegmental motion cannot be fully supported when one considers that such devices are placed at a location far removed from the natural rotation center of the intervertebral joint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest

Objective: The Dynesys-Transition-Optima (DTO) hybrid system was designed to achieve arthrodesis and stabilization in patients with lumbar degeneration. Satisfactory outcomes were demonstrated previously. However, no study has evaluated the effects of using the DTO system in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or stenosis., Methods: This retrospective study included 35 consecutive patients with multilevel lumbar degeneration with or without spondylolisthesis who underwent surgery using the DTO system. Imaging studies included pre- and postoperative radiography, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography. The clinical outcomes were measured by Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain., Results: Thirty patients (85.7%) with a mean age of 61.9 years completed the follow-up, with a mean duration of 35.1 months. There were 21 patients in the spondylolisthesis group and 9 in the stenosis group. The spondylolisthesis group had worse functional scores than the stenosis group preoperatively. After DTO surgery, all patients showed significant improvements in clinical outcomes, including VAS for back and leg pain, ODI, and JOA scores (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. At a 2-year follow-up, lumbar alignment was well maintained in both groups (p = 0.116). There were no significant differences in lumbar alignment between the 2 groups., Conclusion: During a follow-up period of over 2 years, both patients with spondylolisthesis and those with stenosis showed improvements and similar disability and pain scores after surgery using the DTO system. Lumbar alignment was also well maintained.

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., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Dynesys (Dynamic Neutralization System) was designed to overcome the shortcomings of fusion. The Dynesys top loading (DTL) system is a new alternative Dynesys system that can be applied via a minimally invasive procedure. This study aimed to ascertain whether DTL is a suitable device for motion preservation and prevention of instability, and to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes between DTL and Dynesys. In this study, 12 patients were treated with Dynesys and 21 patients were treated with DTL. Back and leg pain were evaluated using the visual analog scale. The Oswestry Disability Index was used to evaluate the patients' function. Range of motion (ROM) at the operative level and for the whole lumbar spine was measured pre- and postoperatively. The length of wound, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and operation duration were also compared. All patients were followed up for 12-76 months. Scores on the visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index were significantly improved postoperatively. The median ROM of the whole spine and index level ROM in all patients showed 12.5% and 79.6% loss, respectively. The DTL group exhibited significantly better results in terms of blood loss, wound length, and operation duration, in addition to early ambulation. In conclusion, Dynesys and DTL are semirigid fixation systems that can significantly improve clinical symptoms and signs. Our results suggested that DTL was better than Dynesys as a result of it being a minimally invasive procedure. However, further study with large sample sizes and longer follow-up durations is required to validate the effects of these dynamic stabilizers., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Taiwan.)

Background: As an alternative to spinal fusion, non-fusion dynamic stabilization surgery has been developed, showing good clinical outcomes. In the present study, we introduce our surgical series, which involves non-fusion dynamic stabilization surgery for adjacent segment pathology (ASP) after lumbar fusion surgery., Methods: Fifteen patients (13 female and 2 male, mean age of 62.1 years) who underwent dynamic stabilization surgery for symptomatic ASP were included and medical records, magnetic resonance images (MRI), and plain radiographs were retrospectively evaluated., Results: Twelve of the 15 patients had the fusion segment at L4-5, and the most common segment affected by ASP was L3-4. The time interval between prior fusion and later non-fusion surgery was mean 67.0 months. The Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index showed values of 7.4 and 58.5% before the non-fusion surgery and these values respectively declined to 4.2 and 41.3% postoperatively at 36 months (p=0.027 and p=0.018, respectively). During the mean 44.8 months of follow-up, medication of analgesics was also significantly reduced. The MRI grade for disc and central stenosis identified significant degeneration at L3-4, and similar disc degeneration from lateral radiographs was determined at L3-4 between before the prior fusion surgery and the later non-fusion surgery. After the non-fusion surgery, the L3-4 segment and the proximal segment of L2-3 were preserved in the disc, stenosis and facet joint whereas L1-2 showed disc degeneration on the last MRI (p=0.032). Five instances of radiologic ASP were identified, showing characteristic disc-space narrowing at the proximal segments of L1-2 and L2-3. However, no patient underwent additional surgery for ASP after non-fusion dynamic stabilization surgery., Conclusion: The proposed non-fusion dynamic stabilization system could be an effective surgical treatment for elderly patients with symptomatic ASP after lumbar fusion.

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.

OBJECTIVE The Dynesys, a pedicle-based dynamic stabilization (PDS) system, was introduced to overcome the drawbacks of fusion procedures. Nevertheless, the theoretical advantages of PDS over fusion have not been clearly confirmed. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent PDS using the Dynesys system with those who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). METHODS The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database. Studies that reported outcomes of patients who underwent PDS or PLIF for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal disease were included. The primary efficacy end points were perioperative outcomes. The secondary efficacy end points were changes in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and back and leg pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores and in range of motion (ROM) at the treated and adjacent segments. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate weighted mean differences (WMDs), 95% confidence intervals, Q statistics, and I(2) values. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group. RESULTS Of the 274 retrieved articles, 7 (which involved 506 participants [Dynesys, 250; PLIF, 256]) met the inclusion criteria. The Dynesys group showed a competitive advantage in mean surgery duration (20.73 minutes, 95% CI 8.76-32.70 minutes), blood loss (81.87 ml, 95% CI 45.11-118.63 ml), and length of hospital stay (1.32 days, 95% CI 0.23-2.41 days). Both the Dynesys and PLIF groups experienced improved ODI and VAS scores after 2 years of follow-up. Regarding the ODI and VAS scores, no statistically significant difference was noted according to surgical procedure (ODI: WMD 0.12, 95% CI -3.48 to 3.72; back pain VAS score: WMD -0.15; 95% CI -0.56 to 0.26; leg pain VAS score: WMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.47 to 0.32). The mean ROM at the adjacent segment increased in both groups, and there was no substantial difference between them (WMD 1.13; 95% CI -0.33 to 2.59). Although the United States is the biggest market for Dynesys, no eligible study from the United States was found, and 4 of 8 enrolled studies were performed in China. The results must be interpreted with caution because of publication bias. During Dynesys implantation, surgeons have to decide the length of the spacer and cord pretension. These values are debatable and can vary according to the surgeon's experience and the patient's condition. Differences between the surgical procedures were not considered in this study. CONCLUSIONS Fusion still remains the method of choice for advanced degeneration and gross instability. However, spinal degenerative disease with or without Grade I spondylolisthesis, particularly in patients who require a quicker recovery, will likely constitute the main indication for PDS using the Dynesys system.

The Dynesys dynamic stabilization system is an alternative to rigid instrumentation and fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. Although many outcomes studies have shown good results, currently lacking is a comprehensive report on complications associated with this system, especially in terms of how it compares with reported complication rates of fusion. For the present study, the authors reviewed the literature to find all studies involving the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system that reported complications or adverse events. Twenty-one studies were included for a total of 1166 patients with a mean age of 55.5 years (range 39-71 years) and a mean follow-up period of 33.7 months (range 12.0-81.6 months). Analysis of these studies demonstrated a surgical-site infection rate of 4.3%, pedicle screw loosening rate of 11.7%, pedicle screw fracture rate of 1.6%, and adjacent-segment disease (ASD) rate of 7.0%. Of studies reporting revision surgeries, 11.3% of patients underwent a reoperation. Of patients who developed ASD, 40.6% underwent a reoperation for treatment. The Dynesys dynamic stabilization system appears to have a fairly similar complication-rate profile compared with published literature on lumbar fusion, and is associated with a slightly lower incidence of ASD.

OBJECTIVE Dynamic stabilization devices are designed to stabilize the spine while preserving some motion. However, there have been reports demonstrating limited motion at the instrumented level of the lumbar spine after Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS). The causes of this limited motion and its actual effects on outcomes after DDS remain elusive. In this study, the authors investigate the incidence of unintended facet arthrodesis after DDS and clinical outcomes. METHODS This retrospective study included 80 consecutive patients with 1- or 2-level lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent laminectomy and DDS. All medical records, radiological data, and clinical evaluations were analyzed. Imaging studies included pre- and postoperative radiographs, MR images, and CT scans. Clinical outcomes were measured by a visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. Furthermore, all patients had undergone postoperative CT for the detection of unintended arthrodesis of the facets at the indexed level, and range of motion was measured on standing dynamic radiographs. RESULTS A total of 70 patients (87.5%) with a mean age of 64.0 years completed the minimum 24-month postoperative follow-up (mean duration 29.9 months). Unintended facet arthrodesis at the DDS instrumented level was demonstrated by CT in 38 (54.3%) of the 70 patients. The mean age of patients who had facet arthrodesis was 9.8 years greater than that of the patients who did not (68.3 vs 58.5 years, p = 0.009). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, including VAS back and leg pain, ODI, and JOA scores between patients with and without the unintended facet arthrodesis. Furthermore, those patients older than 60 years were more likely to have unintended facet arthrodesis (OR 12.42) and immobile spinal segments (OR 2.96) after DDS. Regardless of whether unintended facet arthrodesis was present or not, clinical evaluations demonstrated improvement in all patients (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS During the follow-up of more than 2 years, unintended facet arthrodesis was demonstrated in 54.3% of the patients who underwent 1- or 2-level DDS. Older patients (age > 60 years) were more likely to have unintended facet arthrodesis and subsequent immobile spinal segments. However, unintended facet arthrodesis did not affect the clinical outcomes during the study period. Further evaluations are needed to clarify the actual significance of this phenomenon.

Background: As motion-preserving technique has been developed, the concept of hybrid surgery involves simultaneous application of two different kinds of devices, dynamic stabilization system and fusion technique. In the present study, the application of hybrid surgery for lumbosacral degenerative disease involving two-segments and its long-term outcome were investigated., Methods: Fifteen patients with hybrid surgery (Hybrid group) and 10 patients with two-segment fusion (Fusion group) were retrospectively compared., Results: Preoperative grade for disc degeneration was not different between the two groups, and the most common operated segment had the most degenerated disc grade in both groups; L4-5 and L5-S1 in the Hybrid group, and L3-4 and L4-5 in Fusion group. Over 48 months of follow-up, lumbar lordosis and range of motion (ROM) at the T12-S1 global segment were preserved in the Hybrid group, and the segmental ROM at the dynamic stabilized segment maintained at final follow-up. The Fusion group had a significantly decreased global ROM and a decreased segmental ROM with larger angles compared to the Hybrid group. Defining a 2-mm decrease in posterior disc height (PDH) as radiologic adjacent segment pathology (ASP), these changes were observed in 6 and 7 patients in the Hybrid and Fusion group, respectively. However, the last PDH at the above adjacent segment had statistically higher value in Hybrid group. Pain score for back and legs was much reduced in both groups. Functional outcome measured by Oswestry disability index (ODI), however, had better improvement in Hybrid group., Conclusion: Hybrid surgery, combined dynamic stabilization system and fusion, can be effective surgical treatment for multilevel degenerative lumbosacral spinal disease, maintaining lumbar motion and delaying disc degeneration.

Due to the problems associated with rigid fixation, the concept of dynamic stabilization was introduced. Dynesys is one of the pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization systems. In spite of the dynamic nature of Dynesys, there are concerns about the rigidity of the Dynesys system. We present a case of vertebral body split fracture after Dynesys implantation in a 74-year-old woman. She had undergone L2-L5 laminectomy and Dynesys implantation for spinal stenosis 15 months ago. She was discharged with improvement in lower back pain and claudication. Follow-up X-ray images were taken at 1, 3 and 6 months and there was no evidence of screw migration. During the follow-up period, she received selective root block due to persistent leg pain. Eight months after the operation, she visited our hospital due to severe lower back pain. Magnetic resonance imaging showed the features of lumbar spondylitis from L2 to L5. Plain X-ray and computed tomography images showed the presence of a superiorly migrated screw at L5. The screws migrated superiorly into the intervertebral disc space creating a bony defect resembling a sagittal migrated fracture. The Dynesys system was removed and lumbar spondylitis was treated with antibiotics. The aim of the present case was to demonstrate the problems caused due to rigidity of the Dynesys system, when postoperative infection occurs after Dynesys implantation.