Literature DB >> 17413475

The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system: a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings.

James Beastall1, Efthimios Karadimas, Manal Siddiqui, Malcolm Nicol, Justin Hughes, Francis Smith, Douglas Wardlaw.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: We present the positional magnetic resonance imaging findings of a prospective case series of patients undergoing surgery with the Dynesys spinal stabilization device (Zimmer, Inc., Warsaw, IN).
OBJECTIVE: To explore the biomechanical impact of the Dynesys device in vivo. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal fusion surgery is widely used for painful degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine that have not responded to conservative measures. It often produces good outcomes but can be associated with adjacent segment hypermobility that may lead to further degeneration and pain. Previous cadaveric biomechanical studies claim that the Dynesys Dynamic Spinal Stabilization System allows some lumbar movement, behaving similar to a normal spine in extension but similar to rigid fixation in flexion.
METHODS: Twenty-four patients with dominant low back pain, with or without leg pain, were treated with the Dynesys. All patients underwent positional magnetic resonance imaging before surgery and 9 months after surgery. Measurements were made to assess the differences at the operated level, adjacent level, and whole lumbar spine.
RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction in flexion-extension range of movement of both the whole lumbar spine by 13.37 degrees (P = 0.002) and at the instrumented segments by 4.08 degrees (P < 0.001) following surgery. There was an insignificant reduction in range of movement at the level above instrumentation (P = 0.807). Mean anterior disc height at the instrumented level reduced by 0.7 mm following insertion of the Dynesys (P < 0.027). Mean posterior disc height reduced by 0.3 mm (P = 0.453). In a neutral posture, the Dynesys had no significant impact on lordosis or inclination of operated or adjacent levels. Contrary to cadaveric study findings, the Dynesys appears to restrict extension more than flexion with respect to a neutral posture.
CONCLUSIONS: In vivo, the Dynesys Stabilization System allows movement at the instrumented level, albeit reduced, with no significant increased mobility at the adjacent segments. There was reduction of the anterior disc height without a significant increase of the posterior disc height.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17413475     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000257578.44134.fb

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  35 in total

1.  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

2.  [Long-term results of the Dynesys implant].

Authors:  C Klöckner
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Short-term effects of a dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys) for multi-segmental lumbar disc herniation.

Authors:  Qi Wang; Jun Liu; Ying Shi; Yu Chen; Hailong Yu; Junxiong Ma; Weijian Ren; Huifeng Yang; Hongwei Wang; Liangbi Xiang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Comparative biomechanical investigation of a modular dynamic lumbar stabilization system and the Dynesys system.

Authors:  Philippe Gédet; Daniel Haschtmann; Paul A Thistlethwaite; Stephen J Ferguson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  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
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-02-08       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  [Effect of lumbar hybrid instrumentation and rigid fusion on the treated and the adjacent segments. A biomechanical study].

Authors:  B Wiedenhöfer; M Akbar; C H Fürstenberg; C Carstens; S Hemmer; C Schilling
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 7.  Do in vivo kinematic studies provide insight into adjacent segment degeneration? A qualitative systematic literature review.

Authors:  Masoud Malakoutian; David Volkheimer; John Street; Marcel F Dvorak; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Intrasubject repeatability of in vivo intervertebral motion parameters using quantitative fluoroscopy.

Authors:  Alexander Breen; Rebecca Hemming; Fiona Mellor; Alan Breen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-12-08       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  [Current short- and long-term results of lumbar disc replacement : update 2008].

Authors:  B Wiedenhöfer; V Ewerbeck; A J Suda; C Carstens
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 0.955

10.  Dynamic lumbar pedicle screw-rod stabilization: two-year follow-up and comparison with fusion.

Authors:  Ali Fahir Ozer; Neil R Crawford; Mehdi Sasani; Tunc Oktenoglu; Hakan Bozkus; Tuncay Kaner; Sabri Aydin
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2010-03-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.