Cargando…

An in vivo kinematic comparison of dynamic lumbar stabilization to lumbar discectomy and posterior lumbar fusion using radiostereometric analysis

BACKGROUND: Biomechanical studies have shown that dynamic stabilization restores the neutral zone and stabilizes the motion segment. Unfortunately, there are limitations to clinical measurement of lumbar motion segments when using routine radiographs. Radiostereometric analysis is a 3-dimensional te...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Soo-An, Fayyazi, Amir H., Yonemura, Kenneth S., Fredrickson, Bruce E., Ordway, Nathaniel R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4300887/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25694876
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsp.2012.02.003
_version_ 1782353581558464512
author Park, Soo-An
Fayyazi, Amir H.
Yonemura, Kenneth S.
Fredrickson, Bruce E.
Ordway, Nathaniel R.
author_facet Park, Soo-An
Fayyazi, Amir H.
Yonemura, Kenneth S.
Fredrickson, Bruce E.
Ordway, Nathaniel R.
author_sort Park, Soo-An
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Biomechanical studies have shown that dynamic stabilization restores the neutral zone and stabilizes the motion segment. Unfortunately, there are limitations to clinical measurement of lumbar motion segments when using routine radiographs. Radiostereometric analysis is a 3-dimensional technique and can measure the spinal motion segment more accurately than techniques using plain film radiographs. The purpose of this study was measure and compare the range of motion after dynamic stabilization, posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), and lumbar discectomy. METHODS: Four patients who underwent lumbar decompression and dynamic stabilization (Dynesys; Zimmer Spine, Inc., Warsaw, Indiana) for treatment of lumbar spondylosis were compared with 4 patients with a similar diagnosis who were treated by PLF and pedicle screw fixation (PLF group) and 8 patients who had undergone lumbar microdiscectomy (discectomy group) for treatment of radiculopathy. During the surgical procedure, 3 to 5 tantalum beads were placed into each of the operative segments. The patients were followed up postoperatively at 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years. At each follow-up time point, segmental motions (flexion, extension, and total sagittal range of motion [SROM]) were measured by radiostereometric analysis. RESULTS: Flexion, extension, and SROM measured 1.0° ± 0.9°, 1.5° ± 1.3°, and 2.3° ± 1.2°, respectively, in the Dynesys group; 1.0° ± 0.6°, 1.1° ± 0.9°, and 1.5° ± 0.6°, respectively, in the PLF group; and 2.9° ± 2.4°, 2.3° ± 1.5°, and 4.7° ± 2.2°, respectively, in the discectomy group. No significant difference in motion was seen between the Dynesys and PLF groups or between the Dynesys and discectomy groups in extension. Significant differences in motions were seen between the PLF and discectomy groups and between the Dynesys and discectomy groups in flexion (P = .007) and SROM (P = .002). There was no significant change in the measured motions over time. CONCLUSIONS: In this study a significantly lower amount of motion was seen after dynamic stabilization and PLF when compared with discectomy. A future study with a larger cohort is necessary to examine what effect, if any, these motions have on clinical outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4300887
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43008872015-02-18 An in vivo kinematic comparison of dynamic lumbar stabilization to lumbar discectomy and posterior lumbar fusion using radiostereometric analysis Park, Soo-An Fayyazi, Amir H. Yonemura, Kenneth S. Fredrickson, Bruce E. Ordway, Nathaniel R. Int J Spine Surg Full Length Article BACKGROUND: Biomechanical studies have shown that dynamic stabilization restores the neutral zone and stabilizes the motion segment. Unfortunately, there are limitations to clinical measurement of lumbar motion segments when using routine radiographs. Radiostereometric analysis is a 3-dimensional technique and can measure the spinal motion segment more accurately than techniques using plain film radiographs. The purpose of this study was measure and compare the range of motion after dynamic stabilization, posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), and lumbar discectomy. METHODS: Four patients who underwent lumbar decompression and dynamic stabilization (Dynesys; Zimmer Spine, Inc., Warsaw, Indiana) for treatment of lumbar spondylosis were compared with 4 patients with a similar diagnosis who were treated by PLF and pedicle screw fixation (PLF group) and 8 patients who had undergone lumbar microdiscectomy (discectomy group) for treatment of radiculopathy. During the surgical procedure, 3 to 5 tantalum beads were placed into each of the operative segments. The patients were followed up postoperatively at 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years. At each follow-up time point, segmental motions (flexion, extension, and total sagittal range of motion [SROM]) were measured by radiostereometric analysis. RESULTS: Flexion, extension, and SROM measured 1.0° ± 0.9°, 1.5° ± 1.3°, and 2.3° ± 1.2°, respectively, in the Dynesys group; 1.0° ± 0.6°, 1.1° ± 0.9°, and 1.5° ± 0.6°, respectively, in the PLF group; and 2.9° ± 2.4°, 2.3° ± 1.5°, and 4.7° ± 2.2°, respectively, in the discectomy group. No significant difference in motion was seen between the Dynesys and PLF groups or between the Dynesys and discectomy groups in extension. Significant differences in motions were seen between the PLF and discectomy groups and between the Dynesys and discectomy groups in flexion (P = .007) and SROM (P = .002). There was no significant change in the measured motions over time. CONCLUSIONS: In this study a significantly lower amount of motion was seen after dynamic stabilization and PLF when compared with discectomy. A future study with a larger cohort is necessary to examine what effect, if any, these motions have on clinical outcomes. International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery 2012-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4300887/ /pubmed/25694876 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsp.2012.02.003 Text en © 2012 ISASS - International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Full Length Article
Park, Soo-An
Fayyazi, Amir H.
Yonemura, Kenneth S.
Fredrickson, Bruce E.
Ordway, Nathaniel R.
An in vivo kinematic comparison of dynamic lumbar stabilization to lumbar discectomy and posterior lumbar fusion using radiostereometric analysis
title An in vivo kinematic comparison of dynamic lumbar stabilization to lumbar discectomy and posterior lumbar fusion using radiostereometric analysis
title_full An in vivo kinematic comparison of dynamic lumbar stabilization to lumbar discectomy and posterior lumbar fusion using radiostereometric analysis
title_fullStr An in vivo kinematic comparison of dynamic lumbar stabilization to lumbar discectomy and posterior lumbar fusion using radiostereometric analysis
title_full_unstemmed An in vivo kinematic comparison of dynamic lumbar stabilization to lumbar discectomy and posterior lumbar fusion using radiostereometric analysis
title_short An in vivo kinematic comparison of dynamic lumbar stabilization to lumbar discectomy and posterior lumbar fusion using radiostereometric analysis
title_sort in vivo kinematic comparison of dynamic lumbar stabilization to lumbar discectomy and posterior lumbar fusion using radiostereometric analysis
topic Full Length Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4300887/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25694876
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsp.2012.02.003
work_keys_str_mv AT parksooan aninvivokinematiccomparisonofdynamiclumbarstabilizationtolumbardiscectomyandposteriorlumbarfusionusingradiostereometricanalysis
AT fayyaziamirh aninvivokinematiccomparisonofdynamiclumbarstabilizationtolumbardiscectomyandposteriorlumbarfusionusingradiostereometricanalysis
AT yonemurakenneths aninvivokinematiccomparisonofdynamiclumbarstabilizationtolumbardiscectomyandposteriorlumbarfusionusingradiostereometricanalysis
AT fredricksonbrucee aninvivokinematiccomparisonofdynamiclumbarstabilizationtolumbardiscectomyandposteriorlumbarfusionusingradiostereometricanalysis
AT ordwaynathanielr aninvivokinematiccomparisonofdynamiclumbarstabilizationtolumbardiscectomyandposteriorlumbarfusionusingradiostereometricanalysis
AT parksooan invivokinematiccomparisonofdynamiclumbarstabilizationtolumbardiscectomyandposteriorlumbarfusionusingradiostereometricanalysis
AT fayyaziamirh invivokinematiccomparisonofdynamiclumbarstabilizationtolumbardiscectomyandposteriorlumbarfusionusingradiostereometricanalysis
AT yonemurakenneths invivokinematiccomparisonofdynamiclumbarstabilizationtolumbardiscectomyandposteriorlumbarfusionusingradiostereometricanalysis
AT fredricksonbrucee invivokinematiccomparisonofdynamiclumbarstabilizationtolumbardiscectomyandposteriorlumbarfusionusingradiostereometricanalysis
AT ordwaynathanielr invivokinematiccomparisonofdynamiclumbarstabilizationtolumbardiscectomyandposteriorlumbarfusionusingradiostereometricanalysis