Cakir Balkan, Carazzo Charles, Schmidt René, Mattes Thomas, Reichel Heiko, Käfer Wolfram
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 May 20;34(12):1287-91. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a136ab.
Retrospective radiographic analysis of lumbar spine range of motion (ROM) after monosegmental fusion and posterior dynamic stabilization at the level L4-L5.
Comparison of segmental ROM at the index level and the cranial and caudal adjacent levels and of global lumbar spine ROM after monosegmental fusion and posterior dynamic stabilization.
The postulated advantage of nonfusion technology compared with fusion is based on the assumption that preservation of motion at the treated segment reduces the incidence of adjacent segment effects. Therefore, it is imperative to provide evidence that dynamic stabilization devices avoid hypermobility at the adjacent segments because this might substantiate a protective effect on the adjacent segments.
Twenty-six patients with low back pain and claudication due to degenerative instability at the level L4-L5 with concomitant spinal stenosis were treated either with decompression and Dynesys (n = 11) or with decompression and fusion (n = 15). All patients underwent flexion/extension radiographs before surgery and at latest follow-up. ROM was assessed at the index level (L4-L5), the cranial/caudal adjacent levels (L3-L4/L5-S1), and at the lumbar spine from L2 to S1.
There was a significant reduction of the global ROM of the lumbar spine (L2-S1) and the segmental ROM at the index level (L4-L5) in the fusion group, whereas adjacent level ROM did not change significantly. In the Dynesys group, no significant changes of global lumbar spine ROM (L2-S1) and segmental ROM (index level and cranial/caudal adjacent levels) were seen.
This study shows that neither monosegmental instrumented fusion nor monosegmental posterior dynamic stabilization with Dynesys alter the ROM of the cranial and caudal adjacent levels. Consequently, monosegmental posterior dynamic stabilization with Dynesys has no effect with regard to adjacent segment mobility compared with monosegmental fusion.
对L4 - L5节段单节段融合及后路动态稳定术后腰椎活动度(ROM)进行回顾性影像学分析。
比较单节段融合及后路动态稳定术后,目标节段、上下相邻节段的节段性ROM以及全腰椎ROM。
与融合技术相比,非融合技术的假定优势基于这样一种假设,即保留治疗节段的活动可降低相邻节段效应的发生率。因此,必须提供证据证明动态稳定装置可避免相邻节段的活动过度,因为这可能证实其对相邻节段具有保护作用。
26例因L4 - L5节段退行性不稳定伴发椎管狭窄而出现腰痛和间歇性跛行的患者,接受了减压及Dynesys治疗(n = 11)或减压及融合治疗(n = 15)。所有患者在手术前及最新随访时均拍摄了屈伸位X线片。在目标节段(L4 - L5)、上下相邻节段(L3 - L4/L5 - S1)以及L2至S1的腰椎节段评估ROM。
融合组中,腰椎(L2 - S1)的全ROM及目标节段(L4 - L5)的节段性ROM显著降低,而相邻节段的ROM无显著变化。在Dynesys组中,未观察到腰椎全ROM(L2 - S1)及节段性ROM(目标节段及上下相邻节段)有显著变化。
本研究表明,单节段器械融合及Dynesys单节段后路动态稳定均未改变上下相邻节段的ROM。因此,与单节段融合相比,Dynesys单节段后路动态稳定对相邻节段活动度无影响。