Department of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Department of Orthopedics, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Pain Res Manag. 2022 May 18;2022:9367106. doi: 10.1155/2022/9367106. eCollection 2022.
Posterior instrumented fusion is the most widely accepted surgical treatment for spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS). However, long fusion can affect daily activities due to lumbar stiffness. Dynamic stabilization has been introduced to overcome the drawbacks of fusion in recent years. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of dynamic stabilization (Dynesys system) with posterior instrumented fusion for the management of spinal stenosis with DLS.
This study retrospectively reviewed 65 consecutive patients with spinal stenosis and DLS who were undergoing surgical treatment between January 2013 and December 2017. Among them, 34 patients (Dynesys group) had fenestration decompression and Dynesys stabilization, whereas 31 patients (fusion group) underwent posterior instrumented fusion. Clinical outcomes, radiographic data, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.
The mean number of fixed segments was 3.6 ± 0.9 in the Dynesys group and 4.2 ± 1.0 in the fusion group. Lower average values of operating time and blood loss were observed in the Dynesys group ( < 0.05). At an average follow-up of 42 months, there were no significant differences in the visual analog scale for the leg pain (VAS), the scoliosis Cobb's angle, and the lumbar lordosis between the two groups ( > 0.05). The visual analog scale for back pain (VAS), oswestry disability index (ODI), and lumbar stiffness disability index (LSDI) scores of the Dynesys group were lower compared with the fusion group ( < 0.05). The range of motion (ROM) of implanted segments was significantly higher in the Dynesys group as compared to the fusion group ( < 0.05). The overall complications were less in the Dynesys group, but the difference was not statistically significant ( > 0.05).
Both dynamic stabilization and instrumented fusion can improve the clinical outcomes of patients with spinal stenosis and mild DLS. Compared to instrumented fusion, dynamic stabilization has the advantages of less invasion and motion preservation.
后路器械融合是治疗退行性腰椎侧凸伴椎管狭窄(DLS)最广泛接受的手术治疗方法。然而,长节段融合会因腰椎僵硬而影响日常活动。近年来,动态稳定技术的引入克服了融合的缺点。本研究旨在比较后路器械融合与动态稳定(Dynesys 系统)治疗退行性腰椎侧凸伴椎管狭窄的疗效。
本研究回顾性分析了 2013 年 1 月至 2017 年 12 月间 65 例退行性腰椎侧凸伴椎管狭窄患者的临床资料。其中 34 例患者(Dynesys 组)行开窗减压和 Dynesys 稳定术,31 例患者(融合组)行后路器械融合术。比较两组患者的临床疗效、影像学资料及术后并发症。
Dynesys 组固定节段数平均为 3.6±0.9 个,融合组为 4.2±1.0 个。Dynesys 组的手术时间和出血量均低于融合组( < 0.05)。平均随访 42 个月后,两组间腿痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、脊柱侧弯 Cobb 角及腰椎前凸角差异均无统计学意义( > 0.05)。Dynesys 组腰痛 VAS、Oswestry 功能障碍指数(ODI)及腰椎僵硬残疾指数(LSDI)评分均低于融合组( < 0.05)。Dynesys 组植入节段活动度(ROM)明显高于融合组( < 0.05)。Dynesys 组总体并发症发生率低于融合组,但差异无统计学意义( > 0.05)。
后路器械融合和动态稳定均可改善退行性腰椎侧凸伴椎管狭窄患者的临床疗效。与后路器械融合相比,动态稳定具有创伤小、保留运动功能的优点。