Advertisement

The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system

  • Thomas M. Stoll
  • Gilles Dubois
  • Othmar Schwarzenbach

Abstract

Various forms of lumbar instability require a surgical stabilization. As an alternative to fusion, a mobile, dynamic stabilization restricting segmental motion would be advantageous in various indications, allowing greater physiological function and reducing the inherent disadvantages of rigid instrumentation and fusion. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine (Dynesys) is a pedicle screw system for mobile stabilization, consisting of titanium alloy screws connected by an elastic synthetic compound, controlling motion in any plane (non-fusion system). This prospective, multi-center study evaluated the safety and efficacy of Dynesys in the treatment of lumbar instability conditions, evaluating preand post-operative pain, function, and radiological data on a consecutive series of 83 patients. Indications consisted of unstable segmental conditions, mainly combined with spinal stenosis (60.2%) and with degenerative discopathy (24.1%), in some cases with disc herniation (8.4%), and with revision surgery (6.0%). Thirty-nine patients additionally had degenerative spondylolisthesis, and 30 patients had undergone previous lumbar surgery. In 56 patients instrumentation was combined with direct decompression. The mean age at operation was 58.2 (range 26.8–85.3) years; the mean follow-up time was 38.1 months (range 11.2–79.1 months). There were nine complications unrelated to the implant, and one due to a screw malplacement. Four of them required an early surgical reinterven-tion. Additional lumbar surgery in the follow-up period included: implant removal and conversion into spinal fusion with rigid instrumentation for persisting pain in three cases, laminectomy of an index segment in one case and screw removal due to loosening in one case. In seven cases, radiological signs of screw loosening were observed. In seven cases, adjacent segment degeneration necessitated further surgery. Mean pain and function scores improved significantly from baseline to follow-up, as follows: back pain scale from 7.4 to 3.1, leg pain scale from 6.9 to 2.4, and Oswestry Disability Index from 55.4% to 22.9%. These study results compare well with those obtained by conventional procedures; in addition to which, mobile stabilization is less invasive than fusion. Long-term screw fixation is dependent on correct screw dimension and proper screw positioning. The natural course of poly-segmental disease in some cases necessitates further surgery as the disease progresses. Dynamic neutralization proved to be a safe and effective alternative in the treatment of unstable lumbar conditions.

Keywords

Lumbar spine Surgical treatment Non-fusion Instrumentation Instability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abumi K, Panjabi MM, Kramer KM, Duranceau J, Oxland T, Crisco JJ (1990) Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar spine stability after graded facetectomies. Spine 15:1142–1147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amiot LP, Lang K, Putzier M, Zippel H, Labelle H (2000) Comparative results between conventional and computer-assisted pedicle screw installation in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. Spine 25:606–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amundsen T, Weber H, Nordal HJ, Magnaes B, Abdelnoor M, Lilleas F (2000) Lumbar spinal stenosis: conservative or surgical management? Spine 25:1424–1436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aota Y, Kumano K, Hirabayashi S (1995) Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord 8: 464–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boden SD, Martin C, Rudolph R, Kirkpatrick JS, Moeini SMR, Hutton WC (1994) Increase of motion between lumbar vertebrae after excision of the capsule and cartilage of the facets. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:1847–1853PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brechbühler D, Markwalder TM, Braun M (1998) Surgical results after soft system stabilization of the lumbar spine in degenerative disc disease-long term results. Acta Neurochir 140: 521–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bridwell KH, Sedgewick TA, O’Brien MF, Lenke LG, Baldus C (1993) The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 6:461–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Esses SI, Sachs BL, Dreyzin V (1993) Complications associated with the technique of pedicle screw fixation. Spine 18:2231–2239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN, Brower R, Montgomery DM, Kurz LT (1997) Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine 22:2807–2812PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freudiger S, Dubois G, Lorrain M (1999) Dynamic neutralisation of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro. Arch Or-thop Trauma Surg 119:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frymoyer JW, Selby DK (1985) Segmental instability. Rationale for treatment. Spine 10:280–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gardner AD, Pande KC, Hassaan AM, Declerck G (1999) Graf stabilization of intractable lumbar instability syndrome. In: Szpalski M, Gunzburg R, Pope MH (eds) Lumbar segmental instability. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 175–190Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gibson JNA, Grant IC, Waddell G (1999) The Cochrane rewiew of surgery for lumbar disc prolapse and degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Spine 24:1820PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graf H (1992) Lumbar instability: surgical treatment without fusion. Rachis 412:123–137Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grob D, Humke T, Dvorak J (1995) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:1036–1041PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hadlow SV, Fagan AB, Hillier TM, Fraser RD (1998) The Graf ligamento-plasty procedure comparison with posterolateral fusion in the management of low back pain. Spine 23: 1172–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herkowitz HM, Kurz LT (1991) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective study comparing decompression and intertransverse arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 73:802–808PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Husson JL, Poncer R, Polard JL (1996) Derangement intervertebral acquis (DIVA). In: Husson JL, Le Huec JC (eds) Restabilisation intersomatique du rachis lombaire. Sauramps Medical, Montpellier, pp 13–21Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnsson KE, Willner S, Johnsson K (1986) Postoperative instability after decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 11:107–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jönsson B, Akesson M, Jonsson K, Strömqvist B (1992) Low risk for vertebral slipping after decompression with facet joint preserving technique for lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 1:100–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Farfan HF (1982) Instability of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop 165:110–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kumar MN, Jacquot F, Hall H (2001) Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 10:309–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, Weinstein JN, Reinarz SJ, El-Khoury GY, Colby H (1987) Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine 12:97–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mardjetko SM, Connolly PJ, Shott S (1994) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine 19:S2256–S2265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Markwalder TM, Dubach R, Braun M (1995) Soft system stabilization of the lumbar spine as an alternative surgical modality to lumbar arthrodesis in facet syndrome. Preliminary results. Acta Neurochir 134:1–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Matsuzaki H, Tokuhashi Y, Matsumoto F, Hoshino M, Kiuchi T, Toriyama S (1990) Problems and solutions of pedicle screw plate fixation of lumbar spine. Spine 15:1159–1165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ohlin A, Karlsson M, Düppe H, Hasserius R, Redlund-Johnell I (1994) Complications after transpedicular stabilization of the spine. Spine 19:27742779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Okuyama K, Abe E, Suzuki T, Tamura Y, Chiba M, Sato K (1999) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Acta Orthop Scand 70:329–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Panjabi MM (1992) The stabilizing system of the spine. 2. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis. J Spinal Disord 5: 390–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pihlajamäki H, Myllynen P, Böstman O (1997) Complications of transpedicular lumbosacral fixation for non-traumatic disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:183–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prolo DJ, Oklund SA, Butcher M (1986) Toward uniformity in evaluating results of lumbar spine operations. A paradigm applied to posterior lumbar interbody fusions. Spine 11:601–606PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rahm MD, Hall BB (1996) Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation: a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord 9:392–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rigby MC, Selmon GPF, Foy MA, Fogg AJB (2001) Graf ligament stabilisation: midto long-term follow-up. Eur Spine J 10:234–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rohlmann A, Graichen F, Weber U, Bergmann G (2000) 2000 Volvo Award winner in biomechanical studies. Monitoring in vivo implant loads with a telemeterized internal spinal fixation device. Spine 25:2981–2986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schären S, Dick W (1998) Erfolge und Probleme langstreckiger Fusionen der degenerativen Lendenwirbelsaule. Osteosynthese Int 6:173–179Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL (1996) Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar and lumbosacral fusions. Spine 21:970–981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schulitz KP, Wiesner L, Wittenberg RH, Hille E (1996) Das Bewegungs-segment oberhalb der Fusion. Z Orthop 134:171–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Senegas J, Etchevers JP, Vital JM, Baulny D, Grenier F (1988) Widening of the lumbar vertebral canal as an alternative to laminectomy in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Fr J Orthop Surg 2:93–99Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Soini J, Laine T, Pohjolainen T, Hurri H, Alaranta H (1993) Spondylodesis augmented by transpedicular fixation in the treatment of olisthetic and degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop 297:111–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Haselkorn J Kent D, Ciol M, Deyo R (1992) Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA 268:907–911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Turner JA, Herron L, Deyo RA (1993) Meta-analysis of the results of lumbar spine fusion. Acta Orthop Scand [Suppl 251] 64:120–122Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    West JL, Ogilvie JW, Bradford DS (1991) Complications of the variable screw plate pedicle screw fixation. Spine 16:576–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wiltse LL, Spencer CW (1988) New uses and refinements of the paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine. Spine 13:1008–1012Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas M. Stoll
    • 1
  • Gilles Dubois
    • 2
  • Othmar Schwarzenbach
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Spinal SurgeryBethesda SpitalBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Nouvelle Clinique de l’UnionSt. JeanFrance
  3. 3.Spital Thun-SimmentalThunSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations