OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to reveal the quality of published data and the effect size of DPFs compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: since 2002, several dynamic pedicle fixation (DPF) systems have been developed with the aim to stabilize the spine without the undesirable effects of rigid lumbar spine fixation. Nearly ten years later, there are several studies on these dynamic systems. METHODS: A systematic review was done in MEDLINE/PubMED, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Trials and Google Scholar to assess the quality of published literature and the available studied outcomes in randomized controlled trials of DPF. RESULTS: Only three papers described randomized trials studying DPF. One of them focused on protection of adjacent level disease provided by DPF. CONCLUSION: It was not possible to reveal any evidence for benefits using DPF compared to rigid fixation in surgery for lumbar spine.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to reveal the quality of published data and the effect size of DPFs compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: since 2002, several dynamic pedicle fixation (DPF) systems have been developed with the aim to stabilize the spine without the undesirable effects of rigid lumbar spine fixation. Nearly ten years later, there are several studies on these dynamic systems. METHODS: A systematic review was done in MEDLINE/PubMED, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Trials and Google Scholar to assess the quality of published literature and the available studied outcomes in randomized controlled trials of DPF. RESULTS: Only three papers described randomized trials studying DPF. One of them focused on protection of adjacent level disease provided by DPF. CONCLUSION: It was not possible to reveal any evidence for benefits using DPF compared to rigid fixation in surgery for lumbar spine.