AI Article Synopsis

  • The study evaluates dynamic stabilization (using the Dynesys system) versus traditional posterior instrumented fusion for treating spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) in 65 patients.
  • Results showed that while both methods improved outcomes, the Dynesys group experienced less back pain, disability, and maintained greater range of motion compared to the fusion group.
  • Overall, dynamic stabilization appeared to offer advantages, such as reduced operating time and blood loss, while having similar levels of pain and scoliosis improvement over an average follow-up of 42 months.

Article 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 ( < 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), the scoliosis Cobb's angle, and the lumbar lordosis between the two groups ( > 0.05). The visual analog scale for back pain (VAS), oswestry disability index (ODI), and lumbar stiffness disability index (LSDI) scores of the Dynesys group were lower compared with the fusion group ( < 0.05). The range of motion (ROM) of implanted segments was significantly higher in the Dynesys group as compared to the fusion group ( < 0.05). The overall complications were less in the Dynesys group, but the difference was not statistically significant ( > 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9132708PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/9367106DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

instrumented fusion
24
dynesys group
24
dynamic stabilization
20
spinal stenosis
20
fusion group
16
fusion
12
posterior instrumented
12
group 005
12
group
10
stabilization instrumented
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!