Advertisement

Neurosurgical Review

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 189–196 | Cite as

Dynesys fixation for lumbar spine degeneration

  • Matthias Bothmann
  • Erich Kast
  • Gerald Jens Boldt
  • Joachim Oberle
Original Article

Abstract

The dynamic fixation system Dynesys is utilized in the last 10 years for treatment of degenerative segmental disease of the lumbar spine. Dynesys is a semi-rigid fixation system that allows minimal lengthening and shortening between two segmental pedicle screws as opposed to a rigid metal bar. Thus, the system is regarded to maintain stability and near physiological motion patterns of the lumbar spine. The theoretical advantage of this system is to stabilize the treated segment and to prevent adjacent segment degeneration. The goal of this prospective trial was to evaluate clinical, radiographic, and computed tomography (CT) scan outcomes in 54 consecutive cases. Postoperative complications are discussed in detail. Forty cases were recruited with a mean follow-up of 16 months (range, 12 to 37). Postoperative pain scores (Hannover Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire and VAS for back and leg pain) improved in 29 cases (73%) and was best when dynamic fusion was combined with nerve root decompression. Outcome data were not superior to conventional rigid fusion systems and had a considerable number of complications requiring revision surgery in 27.5% of cases.

Keywords

Dynamic stabilization Dynesys Lumbar spine Surgical treatment 

References

  1. 1.
    Ahn SH, Ahn MW, Byun WM (2000) Effect of the transligamentous extension of lumbar disc herniation on their regression and the clinical outcome of sciatica. Spine 25(4):475–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atlas SJ, Keller RB, Chang Y Deyo RA, Singer DE (2001) Surgical and nonsurgical management of sciatica secondary to a lumbar disc herniation. Spine 26(10):1179–1187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cakir B, Ulmar B, Koepp H, Huch K, Puhl W, Richter M (2003) Dorsale dynamische Stabilisierung als Alternative zur dorso-ventralen Fusion bei Spinalkanalstenose mit degenerativer Instabilität. Z Orthop 141:418–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dubois G, de Germay B, Prere J, Schwarzenbach O, Stoll TM (2002) Dynamic neutralisation: treatment of mobile vertebral instability. In: Kaech DL, Jinkins JR (eds) Spinal restabilization procedures. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 345–354Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dubois G, de Germay B, Schaerer NS, Fennema P (1999) Dynamic neutralization: a new concept for restabilization of the spine. In: Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Pope MH (eds) Lumbar segmental instability. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 233–240Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elberg JF, Jenny PH, Fuentes JM (1999) Indications and Results of Spinal Osteosynthesis using Dynamic Rods. S.O.F.C.O.T. Annual Meeting, Nov 1999,(Suppl III, Rev Chir Orthop, 1999, 85)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freudiger S, Dubois G, Lorrrain M (1999) Dynamic neutralisation of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 116:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fritzell P, Hägg O, Jonsson D, Nordwall A (2004) Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fusion and nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain in the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine 29(4):421–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A (2001) 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain. Spine 26(23):2521–2534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P et al (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine 27:1131–1141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fröhlich M, Nydegger T, Seebeck J (2003) Review of the system behaviour of Dynesys. Swiss spine institute 6th int symposium. Zuerich, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gibson JN, Grant JC, Waddell G (1999) The Cochrane review of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Spine 24:1820–1832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glaser J, Stanley M, Sayre H, Wooda J, Found E, Spratt K (2003) A 10-year follow-up evaluation of lumbar spine fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Spine 28(13):1390–1395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF (2005) Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine. Spine 30(3):324–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hopf C, Heeckt H, Beske C (2004) Indikation, Biomechanik und Frühergebnisse des künstlichen Bandscheibenersatzes. Z Orthop 142:153–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Farfan H (1982) Instability of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop 165:110–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kohlmann T, Raspe H (1996) Der Funktionsfragebogen Hannover zur alltagsnahen Diagnostik der Funktionsbeeintraechtigung durch Rückenschmerzen (FFbH-R). Rehabilitation 35:1–8Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Lambiris E (2002) The role of rigid vs dynamic instrumentation for stabilization of the degenerative lumbosacral spine. Stud Health Technol Inform 91:457–461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lindsey DP, Swanson KE, Fuchs P, Hsu KY, Zucherman JF, Yerby SA (2003) The Effects of an Interspinous Implant on the Kinematics of the Instrumented and Adjacent Levels in the Lumbar Spine. Spine 28(19):2192–2197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Möller H, Hedlund R (2000) Surgery versus Conservative Management in Adult Isthmic Spondylolisthesis. Spine 25(13):1711–1715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mummaneni PV, Haid RW, Rodts GE (2004) Lumbar interbody fusion: state-of-the-art technical advances. J Neurosurg Spine 1(1):24–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, Tohtz SW, Perka C (2005) The Surgical Treatment of the Lumbar Disc Prolapse. Spine 30(5):E109–E114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, Perka C (2004) Die Anwendung eines dynamischen Pedikelschraubensystems (DYNESYS. ä. ) bei lumbalen Segmentdegenerationen-ein Vergleich klinischer und radiologischer Ergebnisse bei unterschiedlichen Indikationen. Z Orthop 142:166–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Claes L, Wilke HJ (2003) Dynamic Stabilization of the Lumbar Spine and Its Effects on Adjacent Segments. J Spinal Disord Tech 16(4):418–423PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schwarzenbach O, Berlemann U, Stoll T, Dubois G (2005) Posterior Dynamic Stabilisation Systems: DYNESYS. Orthop Clin N Am 36:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sengupta DK (2004) Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain. Othop Clin N Am 35:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sengupta DK, Mulholland RC (2005) Fulcrum Assisted Soft Stabilization System. Spine 30(9):1019–1029PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O (2002) The dynamic neutralization system fort he spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 11(2):S170–S178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zucherman JF et al (2005) A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Trial Evaluating the X Stop Interspinous Process Decompression System for the Treatment of Neurogenic Intermittent Claudication. Spine 30(12):1351–1358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Bothmann
    • 1
  • Erich Kast
    • 1
  • Gerald Jens Boldt
    • 2
  • Joachim Oberle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryNeurosurgery, Kantonsspital WinterthurWinterthurSwitzerland
  2. 2.Orthopedic DepartmentSt. Vincent HospitalDuesseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations