Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Retrospective patient outcome evaluation after semi-rigid stabilization without fusion for degenerative lumbar instability

Evaluation rétrospective des résultats après stabilisation semi-rigide sans fusion pour instabilité lombaire

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Postero-lateral fusion by means of rod-and-screws/hooks constructs is still the gold standard in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spinal diseases. However, fusion remains fraught with a high risk of adjacent levels degeneration, sometimes leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. Dynamic stabilization is supposed to compensate for disadvantages associated with rigid fusion. Preliminary results of spinal stabilization by means of dynamic devices show encouraging results. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to retrospectively evaluate the overall long term outcome and the condition of the adjacent discs to fused segments in an active population of 33 patients with back pain associated with lumbar instability, who underwent postero-lateral dynamic stabilization by means of a dynamic rod-and-screws construct, without fusion. The mean follow-up was 45 months. Clinical and radiological data, pain, function, return to work rate and patient satisfaction index were recorded to assess the overall patient outcome. The results show a very low rate of post-operative complications. No spontaneous fusion was noted in any patient. Pain, both lumbar and radicular, was totally relieved in most of the patients and the functional results were good or excellent in 76% of patients. Most of the patients resumed their previous activities; the return to previous work rate was 87.5%. Ninety-four percent of the patients were fully satisfied with the results. The preservation of both instrumented levels and the adjacent ones was observed in 90% of patients. Although the present series is rather limited in number, the results of the study are encouraging and in agreement with most findings in the literature. As the results are sustained at a mid and long term, the authors believe that the stabilization without fusion by means of semi-rigid/dynamic systems is an interesting alternative to classical fusion as long as the indications are strictly defined.

Résumé

L’ostéosynthèse postéro-latérale à l’aide d’instrumentations avec vis et tiges est aujourd’hui encore le principal traitement chirurgical des pathologies lombaires dégénératives. Néanmoins, l’arthrodèse instrumentée est souvent associée par un risque non négligeable de dégénérescence discale aux niveaux adjacents se traduisant parfois par des résultats cliniques médiocres. La stabilisation dynamique devrait palier les inconvénients de l’arthrodèse et les résultats préliminaires de la littératures montrent que les différentes techniques sont assez prometteuses. Le but de cette étude est d’évaluer rétrospectivement à long terme le résultat global et l’état des disques aux niveaux instrumentés et aux niveaux adjacents dans une population de 33 patients souffrant de lombalgies associées avec une instabilité d’origine dégénérative ayant subi une stabilisation par voie postéro-latérale à l’aide d’une instrumentation dynamique type vis et tiges. Le suivi moyen de cette population a été de 45 mois. Les données cliniques et radiologiques, la douleur, l’aspect fonctionnel, le retour au travail et la satisfaction des patients ont été analysés pour évaluer le résultat global. Les résultats de l’étude montrent peu de complications post-opératoires, sans aucune fusion spontanée dans cette série. La douleur lombaire et radiculaire a été soulagé complètement dans la plupart des patients et les résultats fonctionnels étaient bon ou excellents pour 76% des patients. La plupart des patients ont repris leurs activités habituelles et le taux de reprise du même travail a été de 87,5%. 94% des patients étaient totalement satisfaits du résultat de la chirurgie. La préservation des niveaux discaux instrumentés et des niveaux adjacents a été constatée dans 90% des patients. Même si la série d’étude est relativement limitée en nombre, les résultats sont très encourageants et en parfait accord avec les données de la littérature. Comme les résultats semblent se maintenir dans le temps, à moyen et long terme, les auteurs concluent que la stabilisation dynamique sans fusion à l’aide d’instrumentations dynamiques type vis et tiges peut être considérée comme une alternative intéressante à l’arthrodèse tant que les indications sont clairement définies et respectées.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Axelsson P, Johnsson R, Stromqvist B (1997) The spondylolytic vertebra and its adjacent segment: mobility measured before and after posterolateral fusion. Spine 22(4):414–417

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bordes-Monmeneu M, Bordes-Garcia V, Rodrigo-Baeza F, Saez D (2005) System of dynamic neutralization in the lumbar spine: experience on 94 cases. Neurocirugia (Astur) 16(6):499–506

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brunet JA, Wiley JJ (1984) Acquired spondylolysis after spinal fusion. J Bone Joint Surg 66(5):720–724

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Christie SD, Song JK, Fessler RG (2005) Dynamic interspinous process technology. Spine 30(16 Suppl):S73–S78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cole TK, Burkhardt D, Ghosh P, Ryan M, Taylor T (1985) Effects of spinal fusion on the proteoglycans of the canine intervertebral disc. J Orthopaed Res 3:277–291

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cunningham BW, Kotani Y, McNulty PS, Cappuccino A, McAfee PC (1997) The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure: an in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine 22(22):2655–2663

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dahl B, Gehrchen P, Blyme P, Kiaer T, Tondevold E (1997) Clinical outcome after spinal fusion with a rigid versus a semi-rigid pedicle screw system. Eur Spine J 6:412–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dekutoski MB, Schendel MJ, Ogilvie JW, Olsewski JM, Wallace LJ, Lewis JL (1994) Comparison of in vivo and in vitro adjacent segment motion after lumbar fusion. Spine 19(15):1745–1751

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD (1999) Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies. Am J Orthoped 28:336–340

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Etebar S, Cahill DW (1999) Risk factors for adjacent-segment failure following lumbar fixation with rigid instrumentation for degenerative instability. J Neurosurg 90:163–169

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gardner A, Pande KC (2002) Graf ligamentoplasty: a 7-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 11(Suppl 2):S157–S163. Epub 2002 Jul 12

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gertzbein SD, Betz R, Clements D, Errico T, Hammerberg K, Robbins S, Shepherd E, Weber A, Kerina M, Albin J, Wolk D, Ensor K (1996) Semirigid instrumentation in the management of lumbar spinal condition combined with circumferential fusion: a multicenter study. Spine 21(16):1918–1925

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Goel VK, Lim TH, Gwon J, Chen JY, Winterbottom JM, Park JB, Weinstein JN, Ahn JY (1991) Effects of rigidity of an internal fixation device: a comprehensive biomechanical investigation. Spine 16(6S):155–161

    Google Scholar 

  14. Graf H (1992) Instabilité vertébrale: traitement à l’aide d’un système souple. Rachis 4(2):123–137

    Google Scholar 

  15. Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF (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(3):324–331

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Guigui P, Chopin D (1994) Assessment of the use of the Graf ligamentoplasty in the surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Apropos of a series of 26 patients. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 80(8):681–688

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Guigui P, Lambert P, Lassale B, Deburge A (1997) Evolution à long terme des niveaux adjacents à une arthrodèse lombaire. Rev Chir Orthop 83:685–696

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ha KY, Schendel MJ, Lewis JL, Ogilvie JW (1993) Effect of immobilization and configuration on lumbar adjacent-segment biomechanics. J Spinal Disorders 6(2):99–105

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Harris RI, Wiley JJ (1963) Acquired spondylolysis as a sequel to spine fusion. J Bone Joint Surg 45 A(6):1159–1170

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hashimoto T, Oha F, Shigenobu K, Kanayama M, Harada M, Ohkoshi Y, Tada H, Yamamoto K, Yamane S (2001) Mid-term clinical results of Graf stabilization for lumbar degenerative pathologies. a minimum 2-year follow-up. Spine J 1(4):283–328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kanayama M, Cunningham BW, Weis JC, Parker LM, Kaneda K, McAfee PC (1998) The effects of rigid instrumentation and solid bony fusion on spinal kinematics. A posterolateral spinal arthrodesis model. Spine 23(7):767–773

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kanayama M, Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K, Harada M, Oha F, Ohkoshi Y, Tada H, Yamamoto K, Yamane S (2001) Adjacent-segment morbidity after Graf ligamentoplasty compared with posterolateral lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg 95(1 Suppl):5–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kanayama M, Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K, Oha F, Ishida T, Yamane S (2005) Non-fusion surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis using artificial ligament stabilization: surgical indication and clinical results. Spine 30(5):588–592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 91:457–461

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Koureas G, Lambiris E (2004) Rigid, semirigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a correlative radiological and clinical analysis of short-term results. Spine 29(7):735–742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee CK (1988) Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 13(3):375–377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee KC, Langrana NA (1984) Lumbosacral spinal fusion: a biomechanical study. Spine 9(6):574–581

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Madan S, Boeree NR (2003) Outcome of the Graf ligamentoplasty procedure compared with anterior lumbar interbody fusion with the Hartshill horseshoe cage. Eur Spine J 12(4):361–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Markwalder TM, Wenger M (2003) Dynamic stabilization of lumbar motion segments by use of Graf’s ligaments: results with an average follow-up of 7.4 years in 39 highly selected, consecutive patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 145(3):209–214, discussion 214

    Google Scholar 

  30. McAfee PC, Farey ID, Sutterlin CE, Gurr KR, Warden KE, Cunningham BW (1989) Device-related osteoporosis with spinal instrumentation. Spine 14(9):919–926

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. McAfee PC, Farey ID, Sutterlin CE, Gurr KR, Warden KE, Cunningham BW (1991) The effect of spinal implant rigidity on vertebral bone density: a canine model. Spine 16(6S):190–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK (2002) Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization. Eur Spine J 11 (Suppl 2):S198–S205

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nagata H, Schendel MJ, Transfeldt EE, Lewis JL (1993) The effects of immobilization of long segments of the spine on the adjacent and distal facet force and lumbosacral motion. Spine 18(16):2471–2479

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk J, Perka C (2004) Application of a dynamic pedicle screw system (DYNESYS) for lumbar segmental degenerations—comparison of clinical and radiological results for different indications Z. Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 142(2):166–173

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, Tohtz SW, Perka C (2005) The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse: nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone. Spine 30(5):E109–E114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Saxler G, Wedemeyer C, von Knoch M, Render UM, Quint U (2005) Follow-up study after dynamic and static stabilisation of the lumbar spine Z. Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 143(1):92–99

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B (2006) Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 31(4):442–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sengupta DK (2004) Dynamic stabilization devices in the treatment of low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 35(1):43–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Steib JP, Bogorin I, Brax M, Lang G (2000) Résultats des ostéosynthèses-arthrodèses lombaires et lombosacrées: corrélation radio-clinique à propos de 113 cas revus avec 3,8 années de recul moyen. Rev Chir Orthop 86:127–135

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Stoll TM, 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 (Suppl 2):S170–S178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wimmer C, Gluch H, Krismer M, Ogon M, Jesenko R (1997) AP-Translation in the proximal disc adjacent to lumbar spine fusion. Acta Orthop Scand 68(3):269–272

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacques Benezech.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Benezech, J., Mitulescu, A. Retrospective patient outcome evaluation after semi-rigid stabilization without fusion for degenerative lumbar instability. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 17, 227–234 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-006-0186-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-006-0186-9

Keywords

Mots clés

Navigation