Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 9/2011

01-09-2011 | Original Article

Kinematic evaluation of the adjacent segments after lumbar instrumented surgery: a comparison between rigid fusion and dynamic non-fusion stabilization

Authors: Yuichiro Morishita, Hideki Ohta, Masatoshi Naito, Yoshiyuki Matsumoto, George Huang, Masato Tatsumi, Yoshiharu Takemitsu, Hirotaka Kida

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 9/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to evaluate changes in lumbar kinematics after lumbar monosegmental instrumented surgery with rigid fusion and dynamic non-fusion stabilization. A total of 77 lumbar spinal stenosis patients with L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis underwent L4–5 monosegmental posterior instrumented surgery. Of these, 36 patients were treated with rigid fusion (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) and 41 with dynamic stabilization [segmental spinal correction system (SSCS)]. Lumbar kinematics was evaluated with functional radiographs preoperatively and at final follow-up postoperatively. We defined the contribution of each segmental mobility to the total lumbar mobility as the percent segmental mobility [(sagittal angular motion of each segment in degrees)/(total sagittal angular motion in degrees) × 100]. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed on all patients preoperatively and at final follow-up postoperatively. The discs were classified into five grades based on the previously reported system. We defined the progress of disc degeneration as (grade at final follow-up) − (grade at preoperatively). No significant kinematical differences were shown at any of the lumbar segments preoperatively; however, significant differences were observed at the L2–3, L4–5, and L5–S1 segments postoperatively between the groups. At final follow-up, all of the lumbar segments with rigid fusion demonstrated significantly greater disc degeneration than those with dynamic stabilization. Our results suggest that the SSCS preserved 14% of the kinematical operations at the instrumented segment. The SSCS may prevent excessive effects on adjacent segmental kinematics and may prevent the incidence of adjacent segment disorder.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Panjabi M, Henderson G, Abjornson C et al (2007) Multidirectional testing of one- and two-level ProDisc-L versus simulated fusions. Spine 32:1311–1319PubMedCrossRef Panjabi M, Henderson G, Abjornson C et al (2007) Multidirectional testing of one- and two-level ProDisc-L versus simulated fusions. Spine 32:1311–1319PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Panjabi M, Malcolmson G, Teng E et al (2007) Hybrid testing of lumbar CHARITE discs versus fusions. Spine 32:959–966PubMedCrossRef Panjabi M, Malcolmson G, Teng E et al (2007) Hybrid testing of lumbar CHARITE discs versus fusions. Spine 32:959–966PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Okuda S, Iwasaki M, Miyauchi A et al (2004) Risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF. Spine 29:1535–1540PubMedCrossRef Okuda S, Iwasaki M, Miyauchi A et al (2004) Risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF. Spine 29:1535–1540PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Throckmorton T, Hilibrand A, Mencio G et al (2003) The impact of the adjacent level disc degeneration on health status outcomes following lumbar fusion. Spine 28:2546–2550PubMedCrossRef Throckmorton T, Hilibrand A, Mencio G et al (2003) The impact of the adjacent level disc degeneration on health status outcomes following lumbar fusion. Spine 28:2546–2550PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Shono Y, Kaneda K, Abumi K et al (1998) Stability of posterior spinal instrumentation and its effects on adjacent motion segments in the lumbosacral spine. Spine 23:1550–1558PubMedCrossRef Shono Y, Kaneda K, Abumi K et al (1998) Stability of posterior spinal instrumentation and its effects on adjacent motion segments in the lumbosacral spine. Spine 23:1550–1558PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Chow DH, Luk KD, Evans JH et al (1996) Effects of short anterior lumbar interbody fusion on biomechanics of neighboring unfused segments. Spine 21:549–555PubMedCrossRef Chow DH, Luk KD, Evans JH et al (1996) Effects of short anterior lumbar interbody fusion on biomechanics of neighboring unfused segments. Spine 21:549–555PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Esses SI, Doherty BJ, Crawford MJ et al (1996) Kinematics evaluation of lumbar fusion techniques. Spine 21:676–684PubMedCrossRef Esses SI, Doherty BJ, Crawford MJ et al (1996) Kinematics evaluation of lumbar fusion techniques. Spine 21:676–684PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN et al (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:1497–1503PubMed Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN et al (2004) Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:1497–1503PubMed
9.
go back to reference McAffee PC, Farey ID, Suttelin CE et al (1989) 1989 Volvo award in basic science. Device-related osteoporosis with spinal instrumentation. Spine 14:919–926CrossRef McAffee PC, Farey ID, Suttelin CE et al (1989) 1989 Volvo award in basic science. Device-related osteoporosis with spinal instrumentation. Spine 14:919–926CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Cakir B, Carazzo C, Schmidt R et al (2009) Adjacent segment mobility after rigid and semirigid instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine 34:1287–1291PubMedCrossRef Cakir B, Carazzo C, Schmidt R et al (2009) Adjacent segment mobility after rigid and semirigid instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine 34:1287–1291PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Koureas G et al (2004) Rigid, semirigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. A correlative radiological and clinical analysis of short-term results. Spine 29:735–742PubMedCrossRef Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Koureas G et al (2004) Rigid, semirigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. A correlative radiological and clinical analysis of short-term results. Spine 29:735–742PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Strempel AV, Neekritz A, Muelenaere PD et al (2000) Dynamic versus rigid spinal implants. In: Gunzburg R, Szpalski M (eds) Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, vol 31. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 275–285 Strempel AV, Neekritz A, Muelenaere PD et al (2000) Dynamic versus rigid spinal implants. In: Gunzburg R, Szpalski M (eds) Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, vol 31. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 275–285
13.
go back to reference Strempel AV, Stoss C, Moosmann D et al (2006) Non-fusion stabilization of the lumbar spine in the case of degenerative diseases with a dynamic pedicle screw rod. Coluna/Columna 5:27–34 Strempel AV, Stoss C, Moosmann D et al (2006) Non-fusion stabilization of the lumbar spine in the case of degenerative diseases with a dynamic pedicle screw rod. Coluna/Columna 5:27–34
14.
go back to reference Wilke HJ, Heuer F, Schmidt H (2009) Prospective design delineation and subsequent in vitro evaluation of a new posterior dynamic stabilization system. Spine 34:255–261PubMedCrossRef Wilke HJ, Heuer F, Schmidt H (2009) Prospective design delineation and subsequent in vitro evaluation of a new posterior dynamic stabilization system. Spine 34:255–261PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Kumar A, Beastall J, Hughes J et al (2008) Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years. Spine 33:2909–2914PubMedCrossRef Kumar A, Beastall J, Hughes J et al (2008) Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years. Spine 33:2909–2914PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Niosi CA, Wilson DC, Zhu Q et al (2008) The effect of dynamic posterior stabilization on facet joint contact forces. An in vitro investigation. Spine 33:19–26PubMedCrossRef Niosi CA, Wilson DC, Zhu Q et al (2008) The effect of dynamic posterior stabilization on facet joint contact forces. An in vitro investigation. Spine 33:19–26PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Cheng BC, Gordon J, Cheng J et al (2007) Immediate biomechanical effects of lumbar posterior dynamic stabilization above a circumferential fusion. Spine 32:2551–2557PubMedCrossRef Cheng BC, Gordon J, Cheng J et al (2007) Immediate biomechanical effects of lumbar posterior dynamic stabilization above a circumferential fusion. Spine 32:2551–2557PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kanayama M, Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K et al (2007) A minimum 10-year follow-up of posterior dynamic stabilization using Graf artificial ligament. Spine 32:1992–1996PubMedCrossRef Kanayama M, Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K et al (2007) A minimum 10-year follow-up of posterior dynamic stabilization using Graf artificial ligament. Spine 32:1992–1996PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Beastall J, Karadimas E, Siddiqui M et al (2007) The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system. A preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Spine 32:685–690PubMedCrossRef Beastall J, Karadimas E, Siddiqui M et al (2007) The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system. A preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Spine 32:685–690PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B et al (2006) Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolithesis. Spine 31:442–449PubMedCrossRef Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B et al (2006) Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolithesis. Spine 31:442–449PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Grob D, Benini A, Junge A et al (2005) Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine. Spine 30:324–331PubMedCrossRef Grob D, Benini A, Junge A et al (2005) Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine. Spine 30:324–331PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Meyerding HW (1931) Spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 13:39–48 Meyerding HW (1931) Spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 13:39–48
23.
go back to reference Izumida S, Inoue S (1986) Japanese Orthopedic Association Assessment of surgical treatment of low back pain (in Japanese). J Jpn Orthop Assoc 60:391–394 Izumida S, Inoue S (1986) Japanese Orthopedic Association Assessment of surgical treatment of low back pain (in Japanese). J Jpn Orthop Assoc 60:391–394
24.
go back to reference Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K et al (1981) Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 6:354–365PubMedCrossRef Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K et al (1981) Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine 6:354–365PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M et al (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 26:1873–1878PubMedCrossRef Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M et al (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 26:1873–1878PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Hadlow SV, Fagan AB, Hillier TM et al (1998) The Graf ligamentoplasty procedure: comparison with posterolateral fusion in the management of low back pain. Spine 23:1172–1179PubMedCrossRef Hadlow SV, Fagan AB, Hillier TM et al (1998) The Graf ligamentoplasty procedure: comparison with posterolateral fusion in the management of low back pain. Spine 23:1172–1179PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Rigby MC, Selmon GP, Foy MA et al (2001) Graf ligament stabilization: mid- to long-term follw-up. Eur Spine J 10:234–236PubMedCrossRef Rigby MC, Selmon GP, Foy MA et al (2001) Graf ligament stabilization: mid- to long-term follw-up. Eur Spine J 10:234–236PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B (2008) Minimum four-year follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine 33:E636–E642PubMedCrossRef Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B (2008) Minimum four-year follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine 33:E636–E642PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2003) Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:418–423PubMedCrossRef Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2003) Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:418–423PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Cunningham BW, Kotani Y, McNulty PS et al (1997) The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure. An in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine 22:2655–2663PubMedCrossRef Cunningham BW, Kotani Y, McNulty PS et al (1997) The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure. An in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine 22:2655–2663PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Kinematic evaluation of the adjacent segments after lumbar instrumented surgery: a comparison between rigid fusion and dynamic non-fusion stabilization
Authors
Yuichiro Morishita
Hideki Ohta
Masatoshi Naito
Yoshiyuki Matsumoto
George Huang
Masato Tatsumi
Yoshiharu Takemitsu
Hirotaka Kida
Publication date
01-09-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 9/2011
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1701-1

Other articles of this Issue 9/2011

European Spine Journal 9/2011 Go to the issue