We have located links that may give you full text access.
Posterolateral fusion versus Dynesys dynamic stabilization: Retrospective study at a minimum 5.5years' follow-up.
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery & Research : OTSR 2017 December
INTRODUCTION: Lumbar fusion is one of the most widespread techniques to treat degenerative lumbar pathology. To prevent complications such as non-union or adjacent segment degeneration, dynamic stabilization techniques were developed, but with controversial results. The aim of the present study was to compare long-term radiologic and clinical results between fusion and dynamic stabilization.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective study included patients with recurrent lumbar discal hernia or lumbar canal stenosis managed by posterolateral fusion or by dynamic stabilization associated to neurologic release. Patients were seen in follow-up for radiological and clinical assessment: visual analog pain scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-12 (SF-12), adjacent segment disease (ASD), and intervertebral range of motion (ROM).
RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were included: 25 in the fusion group (FG), and 33 in the Dynesys® group (DG). VAS scores were significantly lower in DG than FG. ODI was 14.6±2.8 in DG, versus 19.4±3.3 in FG (P=0.0001). SF-12 physical subscore was significantly higher in DG. ROM was 4.1±2° in DG, vs. 0.7±0.5° in FG (P=0.001). Radiologic ASD was significantly greater in FG than DG (36% vs. 12.1%; P=0.012), without difference in clinical expression (DG, 1 case; FG, 2 cases).
CONCLUSION: Dynamic stabilization provided clinical and radiological results comparable to those of posterolateral fusion in these indications (although level L5-S1 was not studied).
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A single-center retrospective study included patients with recurrent lumbar discal hernia or lumbar canal stenosis managed by posterolateral fusion or by dynamic stabilization associated to neurologic release. Patients were seen in follow-up for radiological and clinical assessment: visual analog pain scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-12 (SF-12), adjacent segment disease (ASD), and intervertebral range of motion (ROM).
RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were included: 25 in the fusion group (FG), and 33 in the Dynesys® group (DG). VAS scores were significantly lower in DG than FG. ODI was 14.6±2.8 in DG, versus 19.4±3.3 in FG (P=0.0001). SF-12 physical subscore was significantly higher in DG. ROM was 4.1±2° in DG, vs. 0.7±0.5° in FG (P=0.001). Radiologic ASD was significantly greater in FG than DG (36% vs. 12.1%; P=0.012), without difference in clinical expression (DG, 1 case; FG, 2 cases).
CONCLUSION: Dynamic stabilization provided clinical and radiological results comparable to those of posterolateral fusion in these indications (although level L5-S1 was not studied).
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app