medigraphic.com

2013, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Cir Cir 2013; 81 (1)

Transpedicular dynamics stabilization in the treatment of lumbar stenosis. Fourth years follow-up

Reyes-Sánchez A, Sánchez-Bringas G, Zarate-Kalfopulos B, Alpizar-Aguirre A, Lara-Padilla E, Rosales-Olivares LM

Language: Spanish
References: 36
Page: 48-54
PDF size: 211.92 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: We need to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of dynamic fixation in patients with narrow lumbar through comparing the assessment of two years with 4 years of follow-up.
Methods: Prospective, longitudinal, autocontrol deliberately and sequential intervention, in lumbar stenosis patients who made treatment with dynamic stabilization posterior type Acuflex. An evaluation of four of final follow-up.
Results: 18 patients who completed follow-up two years results as a basis for comparison: 18 patients, 14 female and 4 male, average age 44.05 years. Pain evaluated with numerical visual scale was found in the lower back at 24 months in an average of 2.84 and 48 months in 3.26. The function measured with the functional level of Oswestry to the two-year 24% and at age four 22.44%, with a p = 0.373. In the magnetic resonance for classification of patients 15 Pfirrmann without changes and three with increase of a degree. According to patients 2 Modic changes one of type 0 to type III and another to type I. We have observed that five patients have required second surgery for removal of material findings.
Conclusions: There is no change between 2 and 4 years in the scale of Oswestry and pain with Visual numerical scale functionality. The average height in discs had change with statistical significance, in the comparative period. The intervertebral discs had changes in 3 patients with direct relationship between scale of Pfirrmann and Modic. The rest of patients keep rehydration and normal disc height.



REFERENCES

  1. Gunzburg R, Szpalski M. The conservative surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly. Eur Spine J 2003;12(Suppl 2):S176-S180.

  2. Carreon LY, Puno RM, Dimar JR 2nd, Glassman SD, Johnson JR. Perioperative complications of posterior lumbar decompression and arthrodesis in older adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:2089-2092.

  3. Kalanithi PS, Patil CG, Boakye M. National Complication Rates and Disposition After Posterior Lumbar Fusion for Acquired Spondylolisthesis. Spine 2009;34(18):1963-1969.

  4. Fujiwara A, Tamai K, An HS, Kurihashi A, Lim TH, Yoshida H, et al. The Relationship Between Disc Degeneration, Facet Joint Osteoarthritis, and Stability of the Degenerative Lumbar Spine. J Spinal Disord 2000;13(5):444-500.

  5. Gillet P. The Fate of the Adjacent Motion Segments After Lumbar Fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003;16(4):338-345.

  6. Schmid R, Krappinger D, Seykora P, Blauth M, Kathrein A. PLIF in thoracolumbar trauma: technique and radiological results. Eur Spine J 2010;19(7):1079-1086.

  7. Voor MJ, Mehta S, Wang M, Zhang YM, Mahan J, Johnson JR. Biomechanical Evaluation of Posterior and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques. J Spinal Disord 1998;11(4):328-334.

  8. Lee CK. Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion. Spine 1988;13(3):375-377.

  9. Bordes-Monmeneu M, Bordes-Garcia V, Rodrigo-Baeza F, Saez D. System of dynamic neutralization in the lumbar spine: experience on 94 cases. Neurocirugia (Astur) 2005;16(6):499-506.

  10. Grob D, Benini A, Junge A, Mannion AF. Clinical Experience With the Dynesys Semirigid Fixation System for the Lumbar Spine: Surgical and Patient-Oriented Outcome in 50 Cases After an Average of 2 Years. Spine 2005;30(3):324-331.

  11. Schnake KJ, Putzier M, Haas NP, Kandziora F. Mechanical concepts for disc regeneration. Eur Spine J 2006;15(3):S354-S360.

  12. Kroeber M, Unglaub F, Guehring T, Nerlich A, Hadi TBA, Lotz J, et al. Effects of Controlled Dynamic Disc Distraction on Degenerated Intervertebral Discs. An in Vivo Study on the Rabbit Lumbar Spine Model. Spine 2005;30:181-187.

  13. Kumar MN, Jacquot F, Hall H. Long-term follow-up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 2001;10(4):309-313.

  14. Mandigo C, Sampath P, Kaiser M. Posterior dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine: pedicle based stabilization with the AccuFlex rod system. Neurosurg Focus 2007;22:E91-E94.

  15. Meyers K, Tauber M, Sudin Y, Fleischer S, Arnin U, Firardi F, et al. Use of instruments pedicle screws to evaluate load sharing in posterior dynamic stabilization systems. Spine J 2008;8:926-932.

  16. Wilke HJ, Drumm J, Häussler K, Mack C, Steudel WI, Kettler A. Biomechanical effect of different lumbar interspinous implants on flexibility and intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 2008;17(8):1049-1056.

  17. Mimura M, Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Crisco JJ, Yamamoto I, Vasavada A. Disc degeneration affects the multidirectional flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 1994;19(12):1371-1380.

  18. Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, Haselkorn J, Kent D, Ciol MA, et al. Patients outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA 1991;268:907-911.

  19. Nockels RP. Dynamic stabilization in the surgical Management of painful lumbar spinal disorders. Spine 2005;30:S68-S72.

  20. White AA 3rd, Padjabi MM. The basic kinematics of the human spine. A review of past and current knowledge. Spine 1978;3(1):12-20.

  21. Putzier M, Schneider S, Funk JF, Tohtz S, Perka C. The Surgical Treatment of the Lumbar Disc Prolapse: Nucleotomy With Additional Transpedicular Dynamic Stabilization Versus Nucleotomy Alone. Spine 2005;30(5):E109-E114.

  22. Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B. Dynamic Stabilization in Addition to Decompression for Lumbar Stenosis with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis. Spine 2006;31(4):442-449.

  23. Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M, Liljenqvist U, Bullman V, Filler TJ, et al. The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression. Eur Spine J 2008;17(8):1057-1065.

  24. Sengupta DK, Mullholland RC. Fulcrum Assisted Soft Etabilization System: A New Concept in the Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Low Back Pain. Spine 2005;30(9):1019-1029.

  25. Siepe CJ, Mayer HM, Wiechert K, Korge A. Clinical Results of Total Lumbar Disc Replacement With ProDisc II: Three-Year Results for Different Indications. Spine 2006;31(17):1923-1932.

  26. Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J 2002;11(Suppl 2):S170-S178.

  27. Welch WC, Cheng BC, Awad TE, Davis R, Maxwell JH, Delamarter R, et al. Clinical outcomes of the Dynesys dynamic neutralization system: 1-year preliminary results. Neurosurg Focus 2007;22:E8-E26.

  28. Würgler-Hauri CC, Kalbarczyk A, Wiesli M, Landolt H, Fandino J. Dynamic Neutralization of the Lumbar Spine After Microsurgical Decompression in Acquired Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Segmental Instability. Spine 2008;33(3):E66-E72.

  29. Reyes-Sánchez A, ZÁrate-Kalfópulos B, Ramírez-Mora I, Rosales- Olivarez LM, Alpizar-Aguirre A, Sánchez-Bringas G. Posterior dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine with the Accuflex rod system as a stand-alone device: experience in 20 patients with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 2010;19(12):2164-2170.

  30. Modic MT, Ross JS. Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease. Radiology 2007;245:43-61.

  31. Pfirrmann CWA, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic Resonance Classification of Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Degeneration. Spine 2001;26(17):1873-1878.

  32. Guehring T, Omlor GW, Lorenz H, Engelleiter K, Richter W, Carstens C, et al. Disc Distraction Shows Evidence of Regenerative Potential in Degenerated Intervertebral Discs as Evaluated by Protein Expression, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Messenger Ribonucleic Acid Expression Analysis. Spine 2006;31(15):1658-1665.

  33. Cho BY, Murovic J, Park KW, Park J. Lumbar disc rehydration postimplantation of a posterior dynamic stabilization system. Case report. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:576-580.

  34. Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, Tohtz SW, Perka C. The Surgical Tretment of the Lumbar Disc Prolapse: Nucleotomy With Additional Transpedicular Dynamic Stabilization Versus Nucleotomy Alone. Spine 2005;30(5):E109-E114.

  35. Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B. Minimum Four-Year Follow-up of Spinal Stenosis With Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Treated With Decompression and Dynamic Stabilization. Spine 2008; 33(18):E636-E642.

  36. Morishita Y, Ohta H, Naito M, Matsumoto Y, Huang G, Tatsumi M, et al. Kinematic evaluation of the adjacent segments after lumbar instrumented surgery: a comparison between rigid fusion and dynamic non-fusion stabilization. Euro Spine J. 2011;20(9):1480-1485.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com