Medium and long-term comparisons of Dynesys stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for two-level lumbar degenerative diseases
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20210319-00255
- VernacularTitle:对比Dynesys与椎间融合术治疗双节段腰椎退行性疾病的中长期疗效
- Author:
Kai ZHANG
1
;
Kefeng LUO
;
Kaiwen CAI
;
Bin LU
;
Jiye LU
;
Guoqiang JIANG
;
Haiting WU
Author Information
1. 宁波大学医学院附属医院脊柱外一科 315020
- Keywords:
Lumbar vertebrae;
Internal fixators;
Spinal fusion;
Comparative study;
Treatment outcome
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2021;41(17):1180-1187
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the clinical efficacy and changes between Dynesys and Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative disease.Methods:43 consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative disease were treated using the Dynesys or PLIF between June 2010 and June 2012. In all patients, 23patients were implanted Dynesys and other patients for PLIF. The follow-up period was at least 60 months. Used the Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) to evaluate the clinical outcomes. And during the follow-up period, collected the data for the intervertebral height and the range of motion (ROM), for the operation section and the upper adjacent vertebral. MRI and Grading Scale from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) were used to define the change of intervertebral disc signal.Results:The ODI index and VAS score both improved significantly at the final follow-up evaluation ( P<0.05), as compared to the basal line values. And in terms of imaging, there were no significant difference in the vertebral height of the operation section and the upper adjacent vertebral. The range of motion (ROM) for the operative section in the group of PLIF was significantly lower than that in Dynesys group ( P<0.05). And when it comes to the upper adjacent vertebral space, it was higher at the same time ( P<0.05). According to the UCLA Grading Scale, there were 3 cases in the Dynesys group and 11 in the PLIF group had radiological adjacent degeneration, the difference was significant between two groups ( P<0.05). And when it comes to the second intension, there were 3 patients in PLIF groups (TLIF 1; PLIF 2) but only 1 in Dynesys groups. Conclusion:Dynesys and PLIF are both effective for lumbar degenerative disease and show good medium and long-term clinical and radiographic results. But when it comes the risks in developing ASD and the ROM of adjacent segments, Dynesys stabilization can be the better choice.
