Comparison between posterior dynamic stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative disc disease: a prospective cohort study

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Yongyi Xu²  Feng Ji²  Yue Xie²  Shouguo Wang²  Jiang Xu¹  Haodong Fei² 

[1] Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Huai’an Second People’s Hospital, Xuzhou Medical College, Huai’an, People’s Republic of China;Department of Orthopaedics, Huai’an First People’s Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Huai’an 223300, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China

关键词: Degenerative disc disease;    Posterior lumbar interbody fusion;    Lumbar spine;    Dynesys;    Dynamic stabilization;   

Others  :  1211998
DOI  :  10.1186/s13018-015-0231-7

 received in 2014-11-05, accepted in 2015-05-24,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Few studies compared radiographic and clinical outcomes between posterior dynamic stabilization (PDS) and posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion (PLIF) in treating degenerative disc disease (DDD).

Methods

A total of 176 consecutive patients who underwent posterior instrumented spinal surgery for degenerative disc disease between January 2007 and January 2009 were prospectively divided into two groups—PDS and PLIF. All patients included in the analysis were followed up for 3 years. Demographic distribution, perioperative complications, and radiographic and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

The amount of intraoperative blood loss and drained volume was significantly greater in the PLIF group compared with the PDS group (881.1 ml versus 737.4 ml, p = 0.004). The length of stay of patients who had PLIF surgery (20.9 days) was significantly longer (p = 0.033) than that of patients who underwent PDS surgery (18.9 days). Patients with PLIF surgery had higher total costs than those with PDS surgery (US$12826.8 versus US$11654.5, p = 0.002). No statistically significant differences existed in back visual analogue scale (VAS), leg VAS, or Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores between the PDS and PLIF groups of patients at each time point.

Conclusions

Compared with PLIF, PDS have advantages on blood loss, length of stay in hospital, total charges, and radiographic outcomes, but no advantages on leg and back VAS or ODI scores. High-quality randomized controlled trials are still required in the future.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Fei et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG et al.. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 5: correlation between radiographic and functional outcome. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005; 2(6):658-61.
• [2]Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D. Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J. 2001; 10(4):314-9.
• [3]Okuda S, Iwasaki M, Miyauchi A, Aono H, Morita M, Yamamoto T. Risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004; 29(14):1535-40.
• [4]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, Tohtz SW, Perka C. The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse: nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(5):E109-14.
• [5]Lee SE, Park SB, Jahng TA, Chung CK, Kim HJ. Clinical experience of the dynamic stabilization system for the degenerative spine disease. J Korean Neurosci Society. 2008; 43(5):221-6.
• [6]Welch WC, Cheng BC, Awad TE, Davis R, Maxwell JH, Delamarter R et al.. Clinical outcomes of the Dynesys dynamic neutralization system: 1-year preliminary results. Neurosurg Focus. 2007; 22(1):E8.
• [7]Parker MJ, Roberts CP, Hay D. Closed suction drainage for hip and knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86-A(6):1146-52.
• [8]Ovadia D, Luger E, Bickels J, Menachem A, Dekel S. Efficacy of closed wound drainage after total joint arthroplasty. A prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 1997; 12(3):317-21.
• [9]Andrews CL. Evaluation of the postoperative spine: spinal instrumentation and fusion. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2000; 4(3):259-79.
• [10]Nakai S, Yoshizawa H, Kobayashi S. Long-term follow-up study of posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord. 1999; 12(4):293-9.
• [11]Agazzi S, Reverdin A, May D. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages: an independent review of 71 cases. J Neurosurg. 1999; 91(2 Suppl):186-92.
• [12]Andersen T, Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Bunger C. Pain 5 years after instrumented and non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J. 2003; 12(4):393-9.
• [13]France JC, Yaszemski MJ, Lauerman WC, Cain JE, Glover JM, Lawson KJ et al.. A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion. Outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999; 24(6):553-60.
• [14]Guigui P, Wodecki P, Bizot P, Lambert P, Chaumeil G, Deburge A. Long-term influence of associated arthrodesis on adjacent segments in the treatment of lumbar stenosis: a series of 127 cases with 9-year follow-up. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2000; 86(6):546-57.
• [15]Chou WY, Hsu CJ, Chang WN, Wong CY. Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal posterolateral fusion with instrumentation in elderly patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2002; 122(1):39-43.
• [16]Fay LY, Wu JC, Tsai TY, Wu CL, Huang WC, Cheng H. Dynamic stabilization for degenerative spondylolisthesis: evaluation of radiographic and clinical outcomes. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013; 115(5):535-41.
• [17]Li Z, Li F, Yu S, Ma H, Chen Z, Zhang H et al.. Two-year follow-up results of the Isobar TTL Semi-Rigid Rod System for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. J Clin Neurosci. 2013; 20(3):394-9.
• [18]Hoppe S, Schwarzenbach O, Aghayev E, Bonel H, Berlemann U. Long-term outcome after monosegmental L4/5 stabilization for degenerative spondylolisthesis with the Dynesys device. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012.
• [19]Haddad B, Makki D, Konan S, Park D, Khan W, Okafor B. Dynesys dynamic stabilization: less good outcome than lumbar fusion at 4-year follow-up. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013; 79(1):97-103.
• [20]Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF. Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(3):324-31.
• [21]Yu SW, Yen CY, Wu CH, Kao FC, Kao YH, Tu YK. Radiographic and clinical results of posterior dynamic stabilization for the treatment of multisegment degenerative disc disease with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012; 132(5):583-9.
• [22]Yu SW, Yang SC, Ma CH, Wu CH, Yen CY, Tu YK. Comparison of Dynesys posterior stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spinal stenosis L4L5. Acta Orthop Belg. 2012; 78(2):230-9.
• [23]Fayyazi AH, Ordway NR, Park SA, Fredrickson BE, Yonemura K, Yuan HA. Radiostereometric analysis of postoperative motion after application of dynesys dynamic posterior stabilization system for treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010; 23(4):236-41.
• [24]Beastall J, Karadimas E, Siddiqui M, Nicol M, Hughes J, Smith F et al.. The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system: a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(6):685-90.
• [25]Kumar A, Beastall J, Hughes J, Karadimas EJ, Nicol M, Smith F et al.. Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after Dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(26):2909-14.
• [26]Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B. Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(4):442-9.
• [27]Bothmann M, Kast E, Boldt GJ, Oberle J. Dynesys fixation for lumbar spine degeneration. Neurosurg Rev. 2008; 31(2):189-96.
• [28]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J. 2002; 11 Suppl 2:S170-8.