Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

The use of the DTO™ hybrid dynamic device: a clinical outcome- and radiological-based prospective clinical trial

Authors: Christian Herren, Rolf Sobottke, Miguel Pishnamaz, Max Joseph Scheyerer, Jan Bredow, Leonard Westermann, Eva Maria Berger, Stavros Oikonomidis, Peer Eysel, Jan Siewe

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to assess the radiological and clinical outcome parameters following lumbar hybrid dynamic instrumentation with the focus on the adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and adjacent segment disease (ASDi).

Methods

In this prospective trial all patients presenting with degenerative changes to the lumbar spine have been included. Precondition was a stable adjacent level with/without degenerative alteration. The elected patients underwent a standardised fusion procedure with hybrid instrumentation (DTO™, Zimmer Spine Inc., Denver, USA). Patients’ demographics have been documented and the follow-up visits were conducted after 6 weeks, and then stepwise after 6 up to 48 months. Each follow-up visit included assessment of quality of life and pain using specific questionnaires (COMI, SF-36, ODI) and the radiological evaluation with focus on the adjacent level alterations.

Results

At a mean follow up of 24 months an incidence of ASD with 10.91% and for ASDi with 18.18% has been observed. In 9% a conversion to standardised fusion was needed. There was a high rate of mechanical complication: (1) screw loosening (52.73%), (2) pedicle screw breakage (10.91%), and (3) rod breakage (3.64%) after a follow up of a maximum of 60 months. There were no significant difference of COMI, ODI and SF-36(v2) in comparison to all groups but all 55 patients showed a clinical improvement over the time.

Conclusion

The dynamic hybrid DTO™ device is comparable to the long-term results after standardised fusion procedure, while a high rate of mechanical complication decreased the initial benefit.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at the ClinicalTrials Register (#NCT03404232, 2018/01/18, registered retrospectively).

Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Tosteson AN, Blood E, Hanscom B, Herkowitz H, Cammisa F, Albert T, Boden SD, Hilibrand A, Goldberg H, Berven S, An H. Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:794–810. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0707136.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Malmivaara A, Slatis P, Heliovaara M, Sainio P, Kinnunen H, Kankare J, Dalin-Hirvonen N, Seitsalo S, Herno A, Kortekangas P, Niinimaki T, Ronty H, Tallroth K, Turunen V, Knekt P, Harkanen T, Hurri H. Surgical or nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis? A randomized controlled trial. Spine. 2007;32:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000251014.81875.6d.CrossRefPubMed

Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F. Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management?: a prospective 10-year study. Spine. 2000;25:1424–35. discussion 1435-1426CrossRefPubMed

Bono CM, Lee CK. Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine. 2004;29:455–63. discussion Z455CrossRefPubMed

Okuda S, Iwasaki M, Miyauchi A, Aono H, Morita M, Yamamoto T. Risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF. Spine. 2004;29:1535–40.CrossRefPubMed

Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine. 2004;29:1938–44.CrossRefPubMed

Wang JC, Arnold PM, Hermsmeyer JT, Norvell DC. Do lumbar motion preserving devices reduce the risk of adjacent segment pathology compared with fusion surgery? A systematic review. Spine. 2012;37:S133–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826cadf2.CrossRefPubMed

Ha KY, Seo JY, Kwon SE, Son IN, Kim KW, Kim YH. Posterior dynamic stabilization in the treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis: validity of its rationale. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18:24–31. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.9.spine12392.CrossRefPubMed

Hayes MA, Tompkins SF, Herndon WA, Gruel CR, Kopta JA, Howard TC. Clinical and radiological evaluation of lumbosacral motion below fusion levels in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 1988;13:1161–7.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Chen CS, Cheng CK, Liu CL. A biomechanical comparison of posterolateral fusion and posterior fusion in the lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2002;15:53–63.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Kim YE, Goel VK, Weinstein JN, Lim TH. Effect of disc degeneration at one level on the adjacent level in axial mode. Spine. 1991;16:331–5.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD, Herbert M, Griffith SL. Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine. 1995;20:526–31.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Etebar S, Cahill DW. Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg. 1999;90:163–9.PubMed

14.

Khoueir P, Kim KA, Wang MY. Classification of posterior dynamic stabilization devices. Neurosurg Focus. 2007;22:E3.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Weiner DK, Distell B, Studenski S, Martinez S, Lomasney L, Bongiorni D. Does radiographic osteoarthritis correlate with flexibility of the lumbar spine? J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994;42:257–63.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Gibson JN, Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:Cd001352. 2005. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001352.pub3.

17.

Cheh G, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Buchowski JM, Daubs MD, Kim Y, Baldus C. Adjacent segment disease followinglumbar/thoracolumbar fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation: a minimum 5-year follow-up. Spine. 2007;32:2253–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814b2d8e.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Maserati MB, Tormenti MJ, Panczykowski DM, Bonfield CM, Gerszten PC. The use of a hybrid dynamic stabilization and fusion system in the lumbar spine: preliminary experience. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28:E2. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.focus1055.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Baioni A, Di Silvestre M, Greggi T, Vommaro F, Lolli F, Scarale A. Does hybrid fixation prevent junctional disease after posterior fusion for degenerative lumbar disorders? A minimum 5-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(Suppl 7):855–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4269-3.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Putzier M, Hoff E, Tohtz S, Gross C, Perka C, Strube P. Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part II. No clinical benefit for asymptomatic, initially degenerated adjacent segments after 6 years follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:2181–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1517-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Prud'homme M, Barrios C, Rouch P, Charles YP, Steib JP, Skalli W. Clinical outcomes and complications after pedicle-anchored dynamic or hybrid lumbar spine stabilization: a systematic literature review. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:E439–48. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000092.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Schwarzenbach O, Rohrbach N, Berlemann U. Segment-by-segment stabilization for degenerative disc disease: a hybrid technique. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:1010–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1282-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Hudson WR, Gee JE, Billys JB, Castellvi AE. Hybrid dynamic stabilization with posterior spinal fusion in the lumbar spine. SAS journal. 2011;5:36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esas.2011.01.003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Wu ZX, Gong FT, Liu L. A comparative study on screw loosening in osteoporotic lumbar spine fusion between expandable and conventional pedicle screws. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:471–6.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kashkoush A, Agarwal N, Paschel E, Goldschmidt E, Gerszten PC. Evaluation of a hybrid dynamic stabilization and fusion system in the lumbar spine: a 10 year experience. Cureus. 2016;8:e637. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.637.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

26.

Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF. Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine. 2005;30:324–31.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Hoff E, Strube P, Rohlmann A, Gross C, Putzier M. Which radiographic parameters are linked to failure of a dynamic spinal implant? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:1834–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2200-8.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Herren C, Beckmann A, Meyer S, Pishnamaz M, Mundt M, Sobottke R, Prescher A, Stoffel M, Markert B, Kobbe P, Pape HC, Eysel P, Siewe J. Biomechanical testing of a PEEK-based dynamic instrumentation device in a lumbar spine model. Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon). 2017;44:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.03.009.CrossRef

29.

Yeager MS, Cook DJ, Cheng BC. In vitro comparison of Dynesys, PEEK, and titanium constructs in the lumbar spine. Advances in orthopedics. 2015;2015:895931. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/895931.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: The use of the DTO™ hybrid dynamic device: a clinical outcome- and radiological-based prospective clinical trial
Authors: Christian Herren
Rolf Sobottke
Miguel Pishnamaz
Max Joseph Scheyerer
Jan Bredow
Leonard Westermann
Eva Maria Berger
Stavros Oikonomidis
Peer Eysel
Jan Siewe
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2103-x

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

The use of the DTO™ hybrid dynamic device: a clinical outcome- and radiological-based prospective clinical trial

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

A novel MRI- and CT-based scoring system to differentiate malignant from osteoporotic vertebral fractures in Chinese patients

“Revision of subtrochanteric femoral nonunions after intramedullary nailing with dynamic condylar screw”

Fate of stable hips after prophylactic femoral varization osteotomy in patients with cerebral palsy

Comparison between absorbable pins and mini-screw fixations for the treatment of radial head fractures Mason type II-III

Associations between circulating adipokines and bone mineral density in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study

Grade of retraction and tendon thickness correlates with MR-spectroscopically measured amount of fatty degeneration in full thickness supraspinatus tears