Dynamic stabilization using the Dynesys system versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal disease: a clinical and radiological outcomes-based meta-analysis

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The Dynesys, a pedicle-based dynamic stabilization (PDS) system, was introduced to overcome the drawbacks of fusion procedures. Nevertheless, the theoretical advantages of PDS over fusion have not been clearly confirmed. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent PDS using the Dynesys system with those who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). METHODS The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database. Studies that reported outcomes of patients who underwent PDS or PLIF for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal disease were included. The primary efficacy end points were perioperative outcomes. The secondary efficacy end points were changes in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and back and leg pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores and in range of motion (ROM) at the treated and adjacent segments. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate weighted mean differences (WMDs), 95% confidence intervals, Q statistics, and I2 values. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group. RESULTS Of the 274 retrieved articles, 7 (which involved 506 participants [Dynesys, 250; PLIF, 256]) met the inclusion criteria. The Dynesys group showed a competitive advantage in mean surgery duration (20.73 minutes, 95% CI 8.76–32.70 minutes), blood loss (81.87 ml, 95% CI 45.11–118.63 ml), and length of hospital stay (1.32 days, 95% CI 0.23–2.41 days). Both the Dynesys and PLIF groups experienced improved ODI and VAS scores after 2 years of follow-up. Regarding the ODI and VAS scores, no statistically significant difference was noted according to surgical procedure (ODI: WMD 0.12, 95% CI −3.48 to 3.72; back pain VAS score: WMD −0.15; 95% CI −0.56 to 0.26; leg pain VAS score: WMD −0.07; 95% CI −0.47 to 0.32). The mean ROM at the adjacent segment increased in both groups, and there was no substantial difference between them (WMD 1.13; 95% CI −0.33 to 2.59). Although the United States is the biggest market for Dynesys, no eligible study from the United States was found, and 4 of 8 enrolled studies were performed in China. The results must be interpreted with caution because of publication bias. During Dynesys implantation, surgeons have to decide the length of the spacer and cord pretension. These values are debatable and can vary according to the surgeon's experience and the patient's condition. Differences between the surgical procedures were not considered in this study. CONCLUSIONS Fusion still remains the method of choice for advanced degeneration and gross instability. However, spinal degenerative disease with or without Grade I spondylolisthesis, particularly in patients who require a quicker recovery, will likely constitute the main indication for PDS using the Dynesys system.