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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |