Comparison between Dynamic Stabilization and Instrumented Fusion in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis

Author:

Luo Lei1,Liu Liehua1,Li Pei1ORCID,Zhao Chen1,Liang Lichuan1,Luo Fei2,Zhou Qiang1ORCID,Chen Yanhong1,Fang Lang2

Affiliation:

1. Department of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

2. Department of Orthopedics, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China

Abstract

Objective. 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. Methods. 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. Results. 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 ( P < 0.05 ). At an average follow-up of 42 months, there were no significant differences in the visual analog scale for the leg pain (VASleg), the scoliosis Cobb’s angle, and the lumbar lordosis between the two groups ( P > 0.05 ). The visual analog scale for back pain (VASback), oswestry disability index (ODI), and lumbar stiffness disability index (LSDI) scores of the Dynesys group were lower compared with the fusion group ( P < 0.05 ). The range of motion (ROM) of implanted segments was significantly higher in the Dynesys group as compared to the fusion group ( P < 0.05 ). The overall complications were less in the Dynesys group, but the difference was not statistically significant ( P > 0.05 ). Conclusion. 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.

Funder

Chongqing Medical University

Publisher

Hindawi Limited

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,Neurology

Reference28 articles.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3