OBJECT: The authors undertook this study to investigate the validity of the rationale for posterior dynamic stabilization using the Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion (DIAM) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis. METHODS: A cohort of 31 patients who underwent single-level decompression and DIAM placement for degenerative lumbar stenosis were followed up for at least 2 years and data pertaining to their cases were analyzed prospectively. Of these patients, 7 had retrolisthesis. Preoperative and postoperative plain lumbar radiographs obtained in all patients and CT images obtained in 14 patients were analyzed. Posterior disc heights; range of motion (ROM) of proximal, distal, and implant segments; lordotic angles of implant segments; percentage of retrolisthesis; and cross-sectional area and heights of intervertebral foramina on CT sagittal images were analyzed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using visual analog scale scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores. RESULTS: The mean values for posterior disc height before surgery, at 1 week after surgery, and at the final follow-up visits were 6.4 ± 2.0 mm, 9.7 ± 2.8 mm, and 6.8 ± 2.5 mm, respectively. The mean lordotic angles at the implant levels before surgery, at 1 week after surgery, and at the final follow-up visits were 7.1° ± 3.3°, 4.1° ± 2.7°, and 7.0° ± 3.7°, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the preoperative values and values from final follow-up visits for posterior disc height and lordotic angles at implant levels (p = 0.17 and p = 0.10, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between the preoperative and final follow-up visit values for intervertebral foramen cross-sectional area and heights on CT images. The ROMs of proximal and distal segments also showed no significant decrease (p = 0.98 and p = 0.92, respectively). However, the ROMs of implant segments decreased significantly (p = 0.02). The average 31.4-month improvement for all clinical outcome measures was significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on radiological findings, the DIAM failed to show validity in terms of the rationale of indirect decompression, but it did restrict motion at the instrumented level without significant change in adjacent-segment ROM. The clinical condition of the patients, however, was improved, and improvement was maintained despite progressive loss of posterior disc height after surgery.
OBJECT: The authors undertook this study to investigate the validity of the rationale for posterior dynamic stabilization using the Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion (DIAM) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar stenosis. METHODS: A cohort of 31 patients who underwent single-level decompression and DIAM placement for degenerative lumbar stenosis were followed up for at least 2 years and data pertaining to their cases were analyzed prospectively. Of these patients, 7 had retrolisthesis. Preoperative and postoperative plain lumbar radiographs obtained in all patients and CT images obtained in 14 patients were analyzed. Posterior disc heights; range of motion (ROM) of proximal, distal, and implant segments; lordotic angles of implant segments; percentage of retrolisthesis; and cross-sectional area and heights of intervertebral foramina on CT sagittal images were analyzed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using visual analog scale scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores. RESULTS: The mean values for posterior disc height before surgery, at 1 week after surgery, and at the final follow-up visits were 6.4 ± 2.0 mm, 9.7 ± 2.8 mm, and 6.8 ± 2.5 mm, respectively. The mean lordotic angles at the implant levels before surgery, at 1 week after surgery, and at the final follow-up visits were 7.1° ± 3.3°, 4.1° ± 2.7°, and 7.0° ± 3.7°, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the preoperative values and values from final follow-up visits for posterior disc height and lordotic angles at implant levels (p = 0.17 and p = 0.10, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between the preoperative and final follow-up visit values for intervertebral foramen cross-sectional area and heights on CT images. The ROMs of proximal and distal segments also showed no significant decrease (p = 0.98 and p = 0.92, respectively). However, the ROMs of implant segments decreased significantly (p = 0.02). The average 31.4-month improvement for all clinical outcome measures was significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on radiological findings, the DIAM failed to show validity in terms of the rationale of indirect decompression, but it did restrict motion at the instrumented level without significant change in adjacent-segment ROM. The clinical condition of the patients, however, was improved, and improvement was maintained despite progressive loss of posterior disc height after surgery.
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
Authors: Carolina G Fritsch; Manuela L Ferreira; Christopher G Maher; Robert D Herbert; Rafael Z Pinto; Bart Koes; Paulo H Ferreira Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Wataru Ishida; Benjamin D Elder; Christina Holmes; Sheng-Fu L Lo; C Rory Goodwin; Thomas A Kosztowski; Ali Bydon; Ziya L Gokaslan; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Daniel M Sciubba; Timothy F Witham Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2017-08-30
Authors: Christian Herren; Rolf Sobottke; Miguel Pishnamaz; Max Joseph Scheyerer; Jan Bredow; Leonard Westermann; Eva Maria Berger; Stavros Oikonomidis; Peer Eysel; Jan Siewe Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 2.362