Literature DB >> 21301893

Kinematic evaluation of the adjacent segments after lumbar instrumented surgery: a comparison between rigid fusion and dynamic non-fusion stabilization.

Yuichiro Morishita1, Hideki Ohta, Masatoshi Naito, Yoshiyuki Matsumoto, George Huang, Masato Tatsumi, Yoshiharu Takemitsu, Hirotaka Kida.   

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to evaluate changes in lumbar kinematics after lumbar monosegmental instrumented surgery with rigid fusion and dynamic non-fusion stabilization. A total of 77 lumbar spinal stenosis patients with L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis underwent L4-5 monosegmental posterior instrumented surgery. Of these, 36 patients were treated with rigid fusion (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) and 41 with dynamic stabilization [segmental spinal correction system (SSCS)]. Lumbar kinematics was evaluated with functional radiographs preoperatively and at final follow-up postoperatively. We defined the contribution of each segmental mobility to the total lumbar mobility as the percent segmental mobility [(sagittal angular motion of each segment in degrees)/(total sagittal angular motion in degrees) × 100]. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed on all patients preoperatively and at final follow-up postoperatively. The discs were classified into five grades based on the previously reported system. We defined the progress of disc degeneration as (grade at final follow-up) - (grade at preoperatively). No significant kinematical differences were shown at any of the lumbar segments preoperatively; however, significant differences were observed at the L2-3, L4-5, and L5-S1 segments postoperatively between the groups. At final follow-up, all of the lumbar segments with rigid fusion demonstrated significantly greater disc degeneration than those with dynamic stabilization. Our results suggest that the SSCS preserved 14% of the kinematical operations at the instrumented segment. The SSCS may prevent excessive effects on adjacent segmental kinematics and may prevent the incidence of adjacent segment disorder.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21301893      PMCID: PMC3175893          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1701-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  26 in total

1.  Hybrid testing of lumbar CHARITE discs versus fusions.

Authors:  Manohar Panjabi; George Malcolmson; Edward Teng; Yasuhiro Tominaga; Gweneth Henderson; Hassan Serhan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-04-20       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  The effect of dynamic posterior stabilization on facet joint contact forces: an in vitro investigation.

Authors:  Christina A Niosi; Derek C Wilson; Qingan Zhu; Ory Keynan; David R Wilson; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Adjacent segment mobility after rigid and semirigid instrumentation of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Balkan Cakir; Charles Carazzo; René Schmidt; Thomas Mattes; Heiko Reichel; Wolfram Käfer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-05-20       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after Dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years.

Authors:  Abhishek Kumar; James Beastall; Justin Hughes; Efthimios J Karadimas; Malcolm Nicol; Francis Smith; Douglas Wardlaw
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Prospective design delineation and subsequent in vitro evaluation of a new posterior dynamic stabilization system.

Authors:  Hans-Joachim Wilke; Frank Heuer; Hendrik Schmidt
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Graf ligament stabilisation: mid- to long-term follow-up.

Authors:  M C Rigby; G P Selmon; M A Foy; A J Fogg
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration.

Authors:  C W Pfirrmann; A Metzdorf; M Zanetti; J Hodler; N Boos
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Minimum four-year follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization.

Authors:  Stefan Schaeren; Ivan Broger; Bernhard Jeanneret
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Immediate biomechanical effects of lumbar posterior dynamic stabilization above a circumferential fusion.

Authors:  Boyle C Cheng; Jeff Gordon; Joseph Cheng; William C Welch
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  A minimum 10-year follow-up of posterior dynamic stabilization using Graf artificial ligament.

Authors:  Masahiro Kanayama; Tomoyuki Hashimoto; Keiichi Shigenobu; Daisuke Togawa; Fumihiro Oha
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2011.

Authors:  Robert C Mulholland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Surgical outcomes of additional posterior lumbar interbody fusion for adjacent segment disease after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Toshitada Miwa; Hironobu Sakaura; Tomoya Yamashita; Shozo Suzuki; Tetsuo Ohwada
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Clinical Experiences of Non-fusion Dynamic Stabilization Surgery for Adjacent Segmental Pathology after Lumbar Fusion.

Authors:  Soo Eon Lee; Tae-Ahn Jahng; Hyun-Jib Kim
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-02-03

Review 4.  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

5.  A novel strategy of non-fusion instrumentation with coflex interlaminar stabilization after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Hiroshi Nomura
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2016-06

Review 6.  Adjacent Segment Pathology after Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

Authors:  Jae Chul Lee; Sung-Woo Choi
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2015-09-22

7.  Does hybrid fixation prevent junctional disease after posterior fusion for degenerative lumbar disorders? A minimum 5-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Andrea Baioni; Mario Di Silvestre; Tiziana Greggi; Francesco Vommaro; Francesco Lolli; Antonio Scarale
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Quantitative MRI analysis of the surface area, signal intensity and MRI index of the central bright area for the evaluation of early adjacent disc degeneration after lumbar fusion.

Authors:  Shun-Wu Fan; Zhi-Jie Zhou; Zhi-Jun Hu; Xiang-Qian Fang; Feng-Dong Zhao; Jian Zhang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Kinetic magnetic resonance imaging analysis of lumbar segmental mobility in patients without significant spondylosis.

Authors:  Yanlin Tan; Bayan G Aghdasi; Scott R Montgomery; Hirokazu Inoue; Chang Lu; Jeffrey C Wang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Lumbar degenerative disc disease: current and future concepts of diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Fadi Taher; David Essig; Darren R Lebl; Alexander P Hughes; Andrew A Sama; Frank P Cammisa; Federico P Girardi
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2012-04-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.