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

Introduction: Middle- and long-term outcomes of multi-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis treated with Dynesys stabilization (DS) have rarely been reported. Older age and multi-segmental degeneration may be positive factors in achieving satisfactory outcomes following DS. The present study aimed to compare the middle- and long-term outcomes of DS with lumbar fusion for treatment of multi-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis (ms-LSS) in elderly patients.Materials and Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed patients with ms-LSS treated by DS or lumbar fusion from January 2011 to April 2013. Twenty-two patients were included in the Dynesys group, and 44 patients treated by lumbar fusion and rigid fixation were included in the fusion group. Clinical outcomes were assessed by VAS and ODI. Radiological outcomes were measured by range of motion (ROM) of stabilized segments and the proximal adjacent segment, intervertebral disc height (DH) and L1-S1 lumbar lordosis angle (LL). Modified Pfirrmann grade score was used to access disc degeneration.Outcomes: The mean follow-up time of the Dynesys group and fusion group was 68.50 ± 6.40 and 70.14 ± 7.26 months, respectively. Baseline data were similar between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of improvement of clinical outcomes (VAS and ODI). DS preserved a certain degree of ROM (3.74 ± 2.00) of surgical segments. ROM of proximal adjacent segment underwent an increase in both groups at the final follow-up. The DH of the surgical segments and proximal adjacent segment in both groups was significantly lower than that before surgery (P = 0.000). LL of both groups improved (P = 0.000), and there was no significant difference between the two groups. The modified Pfirrmann score of proximal adjacent segment of both groups increased at the final follow-up. The fusion group underwent a more significant increase (P = 0.000), whereas the inter-group difference showed no significance (P = 0.090).Conclusion: DS is a safe and effective surgical treatment of multi-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly population. DS preserves a certain degree of mobility of surgical segments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: With the innovation on the internal fixation technique of lumbar vertebrae, the Dynesys system is another choice for treating degenerative diseases of lumbar spine. It is one of the most common non-fusion techniques in clinical application. Dynesys dynamic internal fixation system is to maintain the stability of the spine, to retain the physiological activity of the fixed segment, and prevent the adjacent segment degeneration, but its effect on the adjacent segment is still unknown. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the research status and clinical treatments of the lumbar degenerative diseases in Dynesys internal fixation. METHODS: PubMed database was retrieved using the keywords of “lumbar degenerative disease, treatment/therapy, Dynesys dynamic stabilization system/Dynesys” for the articles published between 2002 and 2018. The biomechanics, clinical efficacy and adjacent segment degeneration of the lumbar spine were recorded after reading the retrieved literature. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) Dynesys dynamic stabilization system, as the most widely used non-fusion technology, which can obtain similar clinical efficacy with fusion. (2) Existing evidence shows that Dynesys internal fixation can maintain spinal stability, preserve partial motion of diseased vertebral segments, and reduce the load of facet joints and intervertebral disk pressure. (3) During long-term follow-up, complications such as screw loosening and poor correction of lumbar lordosis often occur after Dynesys internal fixation. (4) In addition, whether the degeneration of adjacent segments after rigid fixation is a natural development process or the role of internal fixation remains controversial. Long-term follow-up and large-sample studies are needed to clarify the mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Hybrid fixators with quite different joint design concepts have been widely to suppress adjacent segment degeneration problems. The kinematic and kinetic responses of the adjacent and transition segments and contact behaviors at the bone-screw interfaces served as the objective of this study. The moderately degenerated L4/L5 and mildly degenerative L3/L4 segments were respectively immobilized by a static fixator and further bridged by the rod-rod (Isobar) and screw-spacer (Dynesys) fixator. The joint stiffness and mobility of the rod-rod system and the cable pretension of the screw-spacer system were systematically varied. The flexion of the screw-spacer system provided higher mobility to the transition segment, reducing adjacent-segment problems. The cable pretension had a minor effect on the construct behavior. However, due to limited joint mobility, the rod-rod system showed higher constraints to the transition segment and induced more adjacent-segment compensations. The increased mobility of the rod-rod joint caused it to behave as a more dynamic fixator that increased adjacent-segment compensations at the transition segment. Comparatively, increasing the joint mobility showed more significant effects on the construct behaviors than decreasing the joint stiffness. Furthermore, increased constraint by the rod-rod joint induced higher stress and risk of loosening at the bone-screw interfaces If the protection of the transition segment is the major concern, the rod-rod system can be used to constrain the intervertebral motion and share the higher loads through the fixator. Otherwise, the screw-spacer system is recommended in situations where higher loads onto the transition disc are allowable. • The hybrid fixation can protect the transition segment and suppress junctional problems. • The cable pretension of the screw-spacer system has a minor effect on the construct behavior. • The screw-spacer system transmits higher loads onto the transition disc. • The rod-rod system comparatively constrains the transition segment. • The rod-rod system induces higher compensations to the adjacent segments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Case series. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between fusion and adjacent segment disease via Dynesys long-term outcomes. Summary Of Background Data: Dynesys is a dynamic stabilization system meant to improve symptoms by stabilizing the spine without fusion and avoiding the development of adjacent segment disease. However, few studies have evaluated long-term outcomes. Methods: All patients were operated on with Dynesys from 2006 to 2009 by a single surgeon at a single institution. We prospectively collected 18 variables among the following categories: patient characteristics, comorbidities, surgical indications, and OR variables. We analyzed two primary endpoints: solid fusion on X-ray and clinical adjacent segment disease (ASD) both at 5 years. Secondary endpoints were time to fusion, time to ASD, reoperation, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS) leg pain. We conducted a multivariate analysis via the random forest method. Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher exact test were then used to qualify relationship between variables. Results: We had 52 patients to review in the database. Eight had preexisting ASD. Mean follow-up was 92 months (median 87 months). Fifteen had ASD (29%) during follow-up at a mean 45 months (Median 35 months). Nine had a solid fusion (17%), 2 of which also had ASD. Mean time to fusion was 65 months (median 71 months). Differences in improvement of ODI (P = 0.005) and VAS leg pain (P = 0.002) were significant favoring patients without ASD. The multivariate analysis revealed four variables associated with ASD: prior ASD (OR 11.3, P = 0.005), neurological deficit (OR 8.5, P = 0.018), revision OR (OR 8.5, P = 0.018), and multilevel degeneration (OR 0.184, P = 0.026). No variable was associated with fusion. Conclusion: Dynesys was associated with a high rate of ASD over long-term follow-up despite maintaining a low fusion rate. Prior ASD was the strongest predictor of progressive ASD. Level Of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Purpose: To determine whether particulate debris is present in periprosthetic tissue from revised Dynesys devices, and if present, elicits a biological tissue reaction. Methods: Five Dynesys dynamic stabilization systems consisting of pedicle screws (Ti alloy), polycarbonate-urethane (PCU) spacers and a polyethylene-terephthalate (PET) cord were explanted for pain and screw loosening after a mean of 2.86 years (1.9-5.3 years). Optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy were used to evaluate wear, deformation and surface damage, and attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy to assess surface chemical composition of the spacers. Periprosthetic tissue morphology and wear debris were determined using light microscopy, and PCU and PET wear debris by polarized light microscopy. Results: All implants had surface damage on the PCU spacers consistent with scratches and plastic deformation; 3 of 5 exhibited abrasive wear zones. In addition to fraying of the outer fibers of the PET cords in five implants, one case also evidenced cord fracture. The pedicle screws were unremarkable. Patient periprosthetic tissues around the three implants with visible PCU damage contained wear debris and a corresponding macrophage infiltration. For the patient revised for cord fracture, the tissues also contained large wear particles (>10 μm) and giant cells. Tissues from the other two patients showed comparable morphologies consisting of dense fibrous tissue with no inflammation or wear debris. Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate wear accumulation and local tissue responses for explanted Dynesys devices. Polymer wear debris and an associated foreign-body macrophage response were observed in three of five cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dynamic stabilization in a degenerate symptomatic spine may be advantageous compared with conventional fusion procedures, as it helps preserve motion and minimizes redistribution of loads at instrumented and adjacent segments. This article presents a systematic review of biomechanical and clinical evidence available on some of the pedicle screw based posterior dynamic stabilization (PDS) devices. Using Medline, Embase, and Scopus online databases, we identified four pedicle-screw-PDS devices for which both, biomechanical testing and clinical follow-up data are available: Graf artificial ligaments, Isobar TTL, Polyetheretherketone rods, and Dynesys. The current state-of-the-art of pedicle-screw-PDS devices is far from achieving its desired biomechanical efficacy, which has resulted in a weak support for the posited clinical benefits. Although pedicle-screw-PDS devices are useful in salvaging a moderately degenerate functionally suboptimal disc, for severe disc degeneration cases fusion is still the preferred choice. We conclude that a pedicle-screw-PDS device should aim at restoring load sharing amongst spinal elements while preserving the qualitative and quantitative nature of spinal motion, especially minimize posterior shift of the helical axis of motion. More precise and objective assessment techniques need to be standardized for in vivo evaluation of intervertebral motion and load sharing amongst spinal elements across different pedicle-screw-PDS devices. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 102A: 3324-3340, 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surgeons often use spinal fixators to manage spinal instability. Dynesys (DY) is a type of dynamic fixator that is designed to restore spinal stability and to provide flexibility. The aim of this study was to design a new spinal fixator using topology optimization [the topology design (TD) system]. Here, we constructed finite element (FE) models of degenerative disc disease, DY, and the TD system. A hybrid-controlled analysis was applied to each of the three FE models. The rod structure of the topology optimization was modelled at a 39 % reduced volume compared with the rigid rod. The TD system was similar to the DY system in terms of stiffness. In contrast, the TD system reduced the cranial adjacent disc stress and facet contact force at the adjacent level. The TD system also reduced pedicle screw stresses in flexion, extension, and lateral bending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dynamic spinal fixators, such as the Dynesys (DY) and K-ROD (KD) systems, are designed to restore spinal stability and to provide flexibility. The long-term complications of implant breakage and the biomechanics of the adjacent and the bridged levels using the KD system are still unknown. Therefore, this study aims to investigate and compare the biomechanical effects of the KD system and the DY system. Finite element (FE) models of the degenerated lumbar spine, the DY system, and the KD system were each reconstructed. Hybrid-controlled analysis was applied in the three FE models. The FE results indicated that the KD system supplies the most stiffness during extension and the least stiffness during flexion, in contrast to the DY system. In contrast to the DY system, the KD system increased the facet contact force of the adjacent level, but this system decreased the screw stress on the cranial adjacent disc and the pedicle during flexion. [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]

Objective: To evaluate the dynamic stabilization system in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Methods: This retrospective study included 38 patients (mean age 63.7 years) with one- or two-level lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent laminectomy and Dynesys (Zimmer Spine, Minneapolis) stabilization. Pre-operatively, 24 had degenerative spondylolisthesis while the other 14 did not. Radiographic and clinical evaluations were analyzed with a mean follow-up of 41.4 ± 6.9 (30-58) months. Results: The mean range of motion (ROM) at the index level was significantly reduced post-operation (10.0±3.3° to 2.7±1.5°, P < 0.001). Screw loosening occurred in 13.3% of levels, 21.1% of patients, and 4.6% of screws. There were no differences between patients with and without spondylolisthesis in ROM and screw loosening. Overall, the mean Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of back and leg pain improved significantly (6.0±3.2 to 1.9±2.6 and 7.4±2.6 to 2.5±2.9, both P < 0.001, respectively), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) also improved significantly (50.6±19.5 to 27.3±24.9, P < 0.001) after the operation. Moreover, there were no differences between the groups of spondylolisthesis and non-spondylolisthesis, or among the patients with and without screw loosening. Conclusions: There is significant clinical improvement after laminectomy and dynamic stabilization with Dynesys for lumbar spinal stenosis. While there was restriction (<3°) in segmental ROM, Dynesys provides similar radiographic stability and clinical effects regardless of pre-operative spondylolisthesis. [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]

Background: This study aims to compare radiographic and clinical outcomes of Dynesys and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for the treatment of multisegment disease. Methods: Thirty-five consecutive patients who received Dynesys implantation at three levels from L1 to S1 from November 2006 to July 2007 were studied. A retrospective analysis of the medical records of 25 patients with the same indications who received 3-level PLIF (L1-S1) was also conducted. Radiographic and clinical outcomes between the groups were compared. All patients included in the analysis completed 3-year follow-up. Dynesys stabilization resulted in higher preservation of motion at the operative levels, as well as total range of motion from L1 to S1. A decrease of anterior disc height was seen in the Dynesys group and an increase was seen in the PLIF group. An increase in posterior disc height was noted in both groups; however, was greater in the PLIF group at 3 years. Results: The Dynesys group showed a greater improvement in Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale back pain scores at 3 years postoperatively. There were no differences in complications between the two groups. Conclusion: In conclusion, Dynesys is an acceptable alternative to PLIF for the treatment of multisegment lumbar disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lumbar spinal fusion is the gold standard for the treatment of degenerative instability of the lumbar spine; however, recently there has been increased concern over the sequelae of successful fusions. Pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization was introduced as an alternative to fusions with the intent of decreasing morbidity and adjacent segment disease. Biomechanical studies have validated dynamic stabilization with Graf ligamentoplasty and the Dynesys system; however, at this time clinical results with these techniques are still unclear. Concerns exist with the quality of the existing studies and the absence of long-term follow-up. The use of polyaryletherketone (ie, PEEK) rods is an emerging technique with good biomechanical data, but currently there are no clinical studies. Greater-quality studies with long-term clinical and radiographic follow-up are needed before the role of pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization in the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability can be determined. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Copyright of Der Orthopäde is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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]

Copyright of Sport- Und Präventivmedizin is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents a study which evaluates the segmental range of motion (ROM) of lumbar spine at the index and adjacent levels after rigid and semirigid instrumentation using the Dynamic Neutralization System Dynesys. The study involves 26 degenerative instability-induced low back pain and claudication patients who underwent pre-operative ant latest follow-up flexion/extension radiographs. It concludes that ROM is not altered by instrumentations associated with Dynesys.

The article reports on the result of a study concerning disc changes in the bridges and adjacent segments after dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years. There was a statistically significant increase in the mean Woodend score the operated levels in the Dynesys alone group compared to the group that underwent additional fusion at one or more levels.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the study which examines the biomechanical impact of the Dynesys Lumbar Spinal Stabilization System on the lumbar spine. It analyzes a total of 24 patients with low back pain who have been treated with the Dynesys and have undergone magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before surgery. Results have shown that the device would decrease overall spinal and individual motion segment movement and would eliminate adjacent segment hypermobility.

Background The nonfusion pedicle-screw system Dynesys stabilization (DS) for lumbar degenerative disease aims to better preserve range of motion (ROM) than fixation and fusion systems. However, decreased ROM and unexpected facet fusion at the index level were observed after DS was applied with unknown etiology. The aim of this study is using radiologic parameters to explain the phenomenon of facet arthrodesis. Methods The patients who underwent surgery for L4-5 spinal stenosis were sorted retrospectively into 2 groups: DS and microdiskectomy (MicD). Radiologic parameters including facet degeneration, evaluated by computed tomography or magnetic resonance image, and ROM, evaluated by dynamic radiographs, were compared perioperatively. A linear regression model was fitted to data points to calculate correlation over time. Postoperative facet arthrodesis at the index level was detected by computed tomography. Functional outcomes were also compared between groups. Results A total of 61 patients (DS-to-MicD = 38:23) were followed 36.9 ± 16.8 months postoperatively. After surgery, both groups of patients had significant clinical improvement without difference between the 2 groups (all P > 0.05). In the DS group, significantly decreased ROM was observed after 24-month follow-up ( P < 0.05). The correlation coefficient of facet degeneration over time and the facet fusion rate in the DS group were both significantly higher than in the MicD group (both P < 0.05). Conclusions The patients who underwent DS for L4-5 grade 1 spondylolisthesis experienced significantly reduced ROM and a positive correlation of facet degeneration over time postoperatively. The limited ROM at the index level could be a potential risk of facet degeneration and cause unexpected arthrodesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVEThe pedicle screw-based Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) has reportedly become a surgical option for lumbar spondylosis and spondylolisthesis. However, it is still unclear whether the dynamic construct remains mobile or eventually fuses. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of unintended facet arthrodesis after DDS and its association with spondylolisthesis.METHODSThis retrospective study was designed to review 105 consecutive patients with 1- or 2-level lumbar spondylosis who were treated with DDS surgery. The patients were then divided into 2 groups according to preexisting spondylolisthesis or not. All patients underwent laminectomies, foraminotomies, and DDS. The clinical outcomes were measured using visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. All medical records, including pre- and postoperative radiographs, CT scans, and MR images, were also reviewed and compared.RESULTSA total of 96 patients who completed the postoperative follow-up for more than 30 months were analyzed. The mean age was 64.1 ± 12.9 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 46.3 ± 12.0 months. There were 45 patients in the spondylolisthesis group and 51 patients in the nonspondylolisthesis group. The overall prevalence rate of unintended facet fusion was 52.1% in the series of DDS. Patients with spondylolisthesis were older (67.8 vs 60.8 years, p = 0.007) and had a higher incidence rate of facet arthrodesis (75.6% vs 31.4%, p < 0.001) than patients without spondylolisthesis. Patients who had spondylolisthesis or were older than 65 years were more likely to have facet arthrodesis (OR 6.76 and 4.82, respectively). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, including VAS back and leg pain, ODI, and JOA scores between the 2 groups. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not unintended facet arthrodesis occurred, all patients experienced significant improvement (all p < 0.05) in the clinical evaluations.CONCLUSIONSDuring the mean follow-up of almost 4 years, the prevalence of unintended facet arthrodesis was 52.1% in patients who underwent DDS. Although the clinical outcomes were not affected, elderly patients with spondylolisthesis might have a greater chance of facet fusion. This could be a cause of the limited range of motion at the index levels long after DDS.

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