Literature DB >> 15062717

Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain.

Dilip K Sengupta1.   

Abstract

Soft stabilization has an important role in the treatment of the degenerative lumbar spine. Fusion of one or two motion segments may not make a big difference in the total range of motion of the lumbar spine, but preserving flexibility of a motion segment may prevent adjacent segment disease and may permit disc replacement, even when facet joints need to be excised. If a favorable environment is created in the motion segment by unloading the disc and permitting near normal motion, the disc may be able to repair itself or may supplement the reparative potential of gene therapy. Although soft stabilization seems promising, one should take a cautious approach to any new implant system. An implant for fusion only has to serve a temporary stabilization until fusion has taken place; on the other hand, a soft stabilization system has to provide stability throughout its life. Implant loosening following fusion surgery is common in the presence of pseudarthrosis. After soft stabilization, the implant has to stay anchored to the bone despite allowing movement. This sounds like a daunting task. The flexibility of the implant system, however, should be able to protect it from loosening at the anchor point into the bone. Finally, the soft stabilization system is intended to load-share with the disc and the facet joint only partially and unloads the motion segment. Any mismatch between the kinematics of the implant system and the motion segment, in particular any discrepancy between their IAR, would result in the implant bearing unexpected load at certain ranges of motion. If that happens, it would guarantee an early implant failure or loosening. The need for strict bench testing in the laboratory, therefore, cannot be over-emphasized. The few soft stabilization systems that have had clinical applications so far have produced a clinical outcome comparable to that of fusion. No prospective randomized controlled trial has been reported yet, which is an essential requirement for practice of evidence-based medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15062717     DOI: 10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00087-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am        ISSN: 0030-5898            Impact factor:   2.472


  32 in total

1.  Long-term reduction in pain and disability after surgery with the interspinous device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM) spinal stabilization system in patients with low back pain: 4-year follow-up from a longitudinal prospective case series.

Authors:  Josip Buric; Massimiliano Pulidori
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-01-29       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part I. Biomechanical effects on lumbar spinal motion.

Authors:  Patrick Strube; Stephan Tohtz; Eike Hoff; Christian Gross; Carsten Perka; Michael Putzier
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  [Longterm results of the interspinous spacer X-STOP].

Authors:  A Reinhardt; S Hufnagel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  [Pedicle screw-based systems for dynamic stabilization : An insight into the philosophy, technique, indications and success of these systems].

Authors:  J Richolt; M Rauschmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Survivorship analysis of 150 consecutive patients with DIAM™ implantation for surgery of lumbar spinal stenosis and disc herniation.

Authors:  Yoo-Joon Sur; Chae-Gwan Kong; Jong-Beom Park
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-10-17       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  The effect of design parameters of interspinous implants on kinematics and load bearing: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Christoph Schilling; M Pfeiffer; T M Grupp; W Blömer; A Rohlmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Comparison of the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Antonius Rohlmann; Nagananda K Burra; Thomas Zander; Georg Bergmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-01-06       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Dynesys fixation for lumbar spine degeneration.

Authors:  Matthias Bothmann; Erich Kast; Gerald Jens Boldt; Joachim Oberle
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2007-09-29       Impact factor: 3.042

9.  Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: potential impact of dynamic stabilization based on imaging analysis.

Authors:  Thomas W Lawhorne; Federico P Girardi; Curtis A Mina; Iaonnis Pappou; Frank P Cammisa
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-28       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Spine patient outcomes research trial: radiographic predictors of clinical outcomes after operative or nonoperative treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Adam M Pearson; Jon D Lurie; Emily A Blood; John W Frymoyer; Heike Braeutigam; Howard An; Federico P Girardi; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.