Cargando…

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

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 fusio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luo, Lei, Liu, Liehua, Li, Pei, Zhao, Chen, Liang, Lichuan, Luo, Fei, Zhou, Qiang, Chen, Yanhong, Fang, Lang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9132708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35646199
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9367106
_version_ 1784713438819254272
author Luo, Lei
Liu, Liehua
Li, Pei
Zhao, Chen
Liang, Lichuan
Luo, Fei
Zhou, Qiang
Chen, Yanhong
Fang, Lang
author_facet Luo, Lei
Liu, Liehua
Li, Pei
Zhao, Chen
Liang, Lichuan
Luo, Fei
Zhou, Qiang
Chen, Yanhong
Fang, Lang
author_sort Luo, Lei
collection PubMed
description 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 (VAS(leg)), the scoliosis Cobb's angle, and the lumbar lordosis between the two groups (P > 0.05). The visual analog scale for back pain (VAS(back)), 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9132708
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91327082022-05-26 Comparison between Dynamic Stabilization and Instrumented Fusion in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis Luo, Lei Liu, Liehua Li, Pei Zhao, Chen Liang, Lichuan Luo, Fei Zhou, Qiang Chen, Yanhong Fang, Lang Pain Res Manag Research Article 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 (VAS(leg)), the scoliosis Cobb's angle, and the lumbar lordosis between the two groups (P > 0.05). The visual analog scale for back pain (VAS(back)), 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. Hindawi 2022-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9132708/ /pubmed/35646199 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9367106 Text en Copyright © 2022 Lei Luo et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Luo, Lei
Liu, Liehua
Li, Pei
Zhao, Chen
Liang, Lichuan
Luo, Fei
Zhou, Qiang
Chen, Yanhong
Fang, Lang
Comparison between Dynamic Stabilization and Instrumented Fusion in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis
title Comparison between Dynamic Stabilization and Instrumented Fusion in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis
title_full Comparison between Dynamic Stabilization and Instrumented Fusion in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis
title_fullStr Comparison between Dynamic Stabilization and Instrumented Fusion in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between Dynamic Stabilization and Instrumented Fusion in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis
title_short Comparison between Dynamic Stabilization and Instrumented Fusion in the Treatment of Spinal Stenosis with Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis
title_sort comparison between dynamic stabilization and instrumented fusion in the treatment of spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar scoliosis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9132708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35646199
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9367106
work_keys_str_mv AT luolei comparisonbetweendynamicstabilizationandinstrumentedfusioninthetreatmentofspinalstenosiswithdegenerativelumbarscoliosis
AT liuliehua comparisonbetweendynamicstabilizationandinstrumentedfusioninthetreatmentofspinalstenosiswithdegenerativelumbarscoliosis
AT lipei comparisonbetweendynamicstabilizationandinstrumentedfusioninthetreatmentofspinalstenosiswithdegenerativelumbarscoliosis
AT zhaochen comparisonbetweendynamicstabilizationandinstrumentedfusioninthetreatmentofspinalstenosiswithdegenerativelumbarscoliosis
AT lianglichuan comparisonbetweendynamicstabilizationandinstrumentedfusioninthetreatmentofspinalstenosiswithdegenerativelumbarscoliosis
AT luofei comparisonbetweendynamicstabilizationandinstrumentedfusioninthetreatmentofspinalstenosiswithdegenerativelumbarscoliosis
AT zhouqiang comparisonbetweendynamicstabilizationandinstrumentedfusioninthetreatmentofspinalstenosiswithdegenerativelumbarscoliosis
AT chenyanhong comparisonbetweendynamicstabilizationandinstrumentedfusioninthetreatmentofspinalstenosiswithdegenerativelumbarscoliosis
AT fanglang comparisonbetweendynamicstabilizationandinstrumentedfusioninthetreatmentofspinalstenosiswithdegenerativelumbarscoliosis