Skip to main content
Log in

Langzeitergebnisse der Dynesys®-Implantation

Long-term results of the Dynesys® implant

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die dynamische Dynesys®-Stabilisierung wurde 1994 als eine bewegungserhaltende Erfindung eingeführt, in dem Versuch, die Nachteile der Fusion zu überwinden, eine ausreichende Stabilität und die Restauration der segmentalen Gelenkkinematik zu gewährleisten, der Instabilität vorzubeugen und die Degeneration der angrenzenden Segmente zu vermeiden. Die Ergebnisse sind, insbesondere für Spinalkanalstenosen mit und ohne degenerative Spondylolisthese bis Grad I nach Meyerding, als gut zu bezeichnen. Eine Dekompression erscheint in den meisten Fällen ein wichtiger Bestandteil für ein gutes Ergebnis der Operation zu sein. Die Degeneration der Bandscheibe im verbundenen und angrenzenden Segment scheint trotz der Dynesys®-Stabilisierung fortzuschreiten. Diese zunehmende Degeneration könnte durch die natürliche Zunahme der Krankheit verursacht sein. Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass diese zunehmende Bandscheibendegeneration eher durch die natürliche Krankheitszunahme bedingt ist, als ein Effekt der Stabilisation ist.

Abstract

Dynamic stabilization was introduced in 1994 as a motion preserving device in an attempt to overcome the disadvantages of fusion and to provide sufficient stability, to restore normal segmental kinematics, to prevent instability, and to avoid adjacent segmental degeneration. The results in patients with spinal stenosis with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis can be considered good. Decompression should be performed in the most cases. Disc degeneration of the bridged and the adjacent segment seems to continue despite Dynesys® stabilization. It is likely that this continuing degeneration is due to natural disease progression rather than an effect of stabilization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Beastall J, Karadimas E, Siddiqui M et al (2007) The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system: a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Spine 32:685–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cakir B, Ulmar B, Koepp H et al (2003) Dorsale dynamische Stabilisierung als Alternative zur dorso- ventralen Fusion bei Spinalkanalstenose mit degenerativer Instabilität. Z Orthop 141:418–424

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cakir B, Carazzo C, Schmidt R et al (2009) Adjacent segment mobility after rigid and semirigid instrumention of the lumbar spine. Spine 34:1287–1291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cunningham BW, Kotani Y, Mc Nulty PS et al (1997) The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure: an in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine 22:2655–2663

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dubois G, Germay B de, Schaerer NS et al (1999) Dynamic neutralization: A new concept for restabilization of the spine. In Spzalski M, Gunzburg R, Pope MH (eds) Lumbar segmental instability. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, pp 233–240

  6. Freudiger S, Dubois G, Lorrain M (1999) Dynamic neutralization of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar simulator in vitro. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 119:127–132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fujiwara A, Lim TH, An HS et al (2000) The effect of disc degeneration and facet joint osteoarthritis on the segmental flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 25:3036–3044

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grob D, Benini A, Junge A et al (2005) 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 30:324–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hambly MF, Wiltse LL, Raghavan N et al (1998) The transition zone above a lumbosacral fusion. Spine 23:1785–1792

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kocak T, Cakir B, Däxle M et al (2009) Perioperative Morbidität bei Dynesys-Instrumentierung der Lendenwirbelsäule. Z Orthop Unfall 147:210–214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Krismer M, Haid C, Behensky H et al (2000) Motion in lumbar functional spine units during side bending and axial rotation moments depending on the degree of degeneration. Spine 25:2020–2027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kumar A, Beastall J, Hughes J et al (2008) Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years. Spine 33:2909–2914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee CK (1988) Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 13:375–377

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pellise F, Hernandez A, Vidal X et al (2007) Radiologic assessment of all unfused lumbar segments 7.5 years after instrumented posterior spinal fusion. Spine 32:574–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Penta M, Sandhu A, Fraser RD (1995) Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of disc degeneration 10 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 20:743–747

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk J et al (2004) Die Anwendung eines dynamischen Pedikelschraubensystems (Dynesys) bei lumbalen Segmentdegenerationen – ein Vergleich klinischer und radiologischer Ergebnisse bei unterschiedlichen Indikationen. Z Orthop 142:166–173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF et al (2005) The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse: nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone. Spine 30:109–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rahm MD, Hall BB (1996) Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation: a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord 9:392–400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B (2008) Minimum four-year follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine 33:636–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL (1996) Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar und lumbosacral fusions. Spine 21:970–981

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2003) Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:418–423

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al (2006) Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 15:1276–1285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B (2006) Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 31:442–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stoll T, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O (2002) The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 11(2):170–178

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tanaka N, An HS, Lim TH et al (2001) The relationship between disc degeneration and flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine J 1:47–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilke HJ, Heuer F, Schmidt H (2009) Prospective design delineation and subsequent in vitro evaluation of a new posterior dynamic stabilization system. Spine 34:255–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Klöckner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klöckner, C. Langzeitergebnisse der Dynesys®-Implantation. Orthopäde 39, 559–564 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-009-1585-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-009-1585-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation