Top

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Published in:

01-10-2019 | Spinal Stenosis | Orthopaedic Surgery

Multi-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis treated with Dynesys stabilization versus lumbar fusion in elderly patients: a retrospective study with a minimum of 5 years’ follow-up

Authors: Annan Hu, Chi Sun, Yun Liang, Houlei Wang, Xilei Li, Jian Dong

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 10/2019

Abstract

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.

Fehlings MG, Tetreault L, Nater A, Choma T, Harrop J, Mroz T, Santaguida C, Smith JS (2015) The aging of the global population: the changing epidemiology of disease and spinal disorders. Neurosurgery 77(Suppl 4):S1–S5. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000953 CrossRefPubMed

Pearson A, Lurie J, Tosteson T, Zhao W, Abdu W, Weinstein JN (2012) Who should have surgery for spinal stenosis? Treatment effect predictors in SPORT. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:1791–1802. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182634b04 CrossRef

Deyo RA (2010) Treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a balancing act. Spine J 10:625–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.05.006 CrossRefPubMed

Lonne G, Fritzell P, Hagg O, Nordvall D, Gerdhem P, Lagerback T, Andersen M, Eiskjaer S, Gehrchen M, Jacobs W, Hooff ML, Solberg TK (2019) Lumbar spinal stenosis: comparison of surgical practice variation and clinical outcome in three national spine registries. Spine J 19:41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.028 CrossRefPubMed

Kim CH, Chung CK, Kim MJ, Choi Y, Kim MJ, Shin S, Jung JM, Hwang SH, Yang SH, Park SB, Lee JH (2018) Increased volume of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis and changes in surgical methods and outcomes: a nationwide cohort study with a 5-year follow-up. World Neurosurg 119:e313–e322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.07.139 CrossRefPubMed

Lonne G, Schoenfeld AJ, Cha TD, Nygaard OP, Zwart J, Solberg T (2017) Variation in selection criteria and approaches to surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis among patients treated in Boston and Norway. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 156:77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.03.008 CrossRefPubMed

Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG (2010) Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 303:1259–1265. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.338 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jancuska JM, Hutzler L, Protopsaltis TS, Bendo JA, Bosco J (2016) Utilization of lumbar spinal fusion in New York State: trends and disparities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:1508–1514. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001567 CrossRef

Son S, Kim WK, Lee SG, Park CW, Lee K (2013) A comparison of the clinical outcomes of decompression alone and fusion in elderly patients with two-level or more lumbar spinal stenosis. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 53:19–25. https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2013.53.1.19 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Zhang C, Berven SH, Fortin M, Weber MH (2016) Adjacent segment degeneration versus disease after lumbar spine fusion for degenerative pathology: a systematic review with meta-analysis of the literature. Clin Spine Surg 29:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000328 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Lee CS, Chung SS, Shin SK, Park SJ, Lee HI, Kang KC (2011) Differences in post-operative functional disability and patient satisfaction between patients with long (three levels or more) and short (less than three) lumbar fusions. J Bone Jt Surg Br 93:1400–1404. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B10.27099 CrossRef

12.

Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M, Liljenqvist U, Bullmann V, Filler TJ, Osada N, Fallenberg EM, Hackenberg L (2008) The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression. Eur Spine J 17:1057–1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0667-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Wang Q, Liu J, Shi Y, Chen Y, Yu H, Ma J, Ren W, Yang H, Wang H, Xiang L (2016) Short-term effects of a dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys) for multi-segmental lumbar disc herniation. Eur Spine J 25:1409–1416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4307-1 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Yu SW, Yen CY, Wu CH, Kao FC, Kao YH, Tu YK (2012) Radiographic and clinical results of posterior dynamic stabilization for the treatment of multisegment degenerative disc disease with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:583–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1460-4 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Fei H, Xu J, Wang S, Xie Y, Ji F, Xu Y (2015) Comparison between posterior dynamic stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative disc disease: a prospective cohort study. J Orthop Surg Res 10:87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-015-0231-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Haddad B, Makki D, Konan S, Park D, Khan W, Okafor B (2013) Dynesys dynamic stabilization: less good outcome than lumbar fusion at 4-year follow-up. Acta Orthop Belg 79:97–103PubMed

17.

St-Pierre GH, Jack A, Siddiqui MM, Henderson RL, Nataraj A (2016) Nonfusion does not prevent adjacent segment disease: Dynesys long-term outcomes with minimum five-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:265–273. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001158 CrossRef

18.

Griffith JF, Wang YX, Antonio GE, Choi KC, Yu A, Ahuja AT, Leung PC (2007) Modified Pfirrmann grading system for lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:E708–E712. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a59a0 CrossRef

19.

Kepler CK, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS, Anderson DG, Rihn JA, Albert TJ, Radcliff KE (2014) National trends in the use of fusion techniques to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:1584–1589. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000486 CrossRef

20.

Lee CH, Jahng TA, Hyun SJ, Kim CH, Park SB, Kim KJ, Chung CK, Kim HJ, Lee SE (2016) Dynamic stabilization using the Dynesys system versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal disease: a clinical and radiological outcomes-based meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus 40:E7. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.10.FOCUS15426 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Liu K, Sun W, Lu Q, Chen J, Tang J (2017) A cost-utility analysis of Dynesys dynamic stabilization versus instrumented fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases. J Orthop Sci 22:982–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2017.07.007 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Prud'Homme M, Barrios C, Rouch P, Charles YP, Steib JP, Skalli W (2015) Clinical outcomes and complications after pedicle-anchored dynamic or hybrid lumbar spine stabilization: a systematic literature review. J Spinal Disord Tech 28:E439–E448. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000092 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Di Silvestre M, Lolli F, Bakaloudis G (2014) Degenerative lumbar scoliosis in elderly patients: dynamic stabilization without fusion versus posterior instrumented fusion. Spine J 14:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.10.023 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Zhang Y, Shan JL, Liu XM, Li F, Guan K, Sun TS (2016) Comparison of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease. PLoS ONE 11:e148071. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148071 CrossRef

25.

Pham MH, Mehta VA, Patel NN, Jakoi AM, Hsieh PC, Liu JC, Wang JC, Acosta FL (2016) Complications associated with the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: a comprehensive review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 40:E2. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.10.FOCUS15432 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Cakir B, Carazzo C, Schmidt R, Mattes T, Reichel H, Kafer W (2009) Adjacent segment mobility after rigid and semirigid instrumentation of the lumbar spine. (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1287–1291. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a136ab CrossRef

27.

Kim CH, Chung CK, Jahng TA (2011) Comparisons of outcomes after single or multilevel dynamic stabilization: effects on adjacent segment. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:60–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181d4eb44 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Wu JC, Huang WC, Tsai HW, Ko CC, Wu CL, Tu TH, Cheng H (2011) Pedicle screw loosening in dynamic stabilization: incidence, risk, and outcome in 126 patients. Neurosurg Focus 31:E9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.7.FOCUS11125 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Wurgler-Hauri CC, Kalbarczyk A, Wiesli M, Landolt H, Fandino J (2008) Dynamic neutralization of the lumbar spine after microsurgical decompression in acquired lumbar spinal stenosis and segmental instability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:E66–E72. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816245c0 CrossRef

Title: Multi-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis treated with Dynesys stabilization versus lumbar fusion in elderly patients: a retrospective study with a minimum of 5 years’ follow-up
Authors: Annan Hu
Chi Sun
Yun Liang
Houlei Wang
Xilei Li
Jian Dong
Publication date: 01-10-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Spinal Stenosis
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 10/2019
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03234-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Multi-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis treated with Dynesys stabilization versus lumbar fusion in elderly patients: a retrospective study with a minimum of 5 years’ follow-up

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Outcomes

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Outcomes

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2019

A whole leg radiograph is not necessary for postoperative determination of the mechanical leg axis after total knee arthroplasty

Lateral extra-articular tenodesis with ACL reconstruction demonstrates better patient-reported outcomes compared to ACL reconstruction alone at 2 years minimum follow-up

Comparison of the use of evaporative coolants and ice packs for the management of preoperative edema and pain in ankle fractures: a prospective randomized controlled trial

All-arthroscopic glenoid reconstruction by iliac crest bone graft transfer does not affect structural integrity and 3-dimensional volume of the subscapularis muscle

Space available for trans-sacral implants to treat fractures of the pelvis assessed by virtual implant positioning

Denosumab treatment for giant-cell tumor of bone: a systematic review of the literature