Dataset Information

Dynamic stabilization versus fusion for treatment of degenerative spine conditions.

ABSTRACT: STUDY DESIGN: Comparative effectiveness review. STUDY RATIONALE: Spinal fusion is believed to accelerate the degeneration of the vertebral segment above or below the fusion site, a condition called adjacent segment disease (ASD). The premise of dynamic stabilization is that motion preservation allows for less loading on the discs and facet joints at the adjacent, non-fused segments. In theory, this should decrease the rate of ASD. However, clinical evidence of this theoretical decrease in ASD is still lacking. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the evidence in the literature comparing dynamic stabilization with fusion. CLINICAL QUESTION: In patients 18 years or older with degenerative disease of the cervical or lumbar spine, does dynamic stabilization lead to better outcomes and fewer complications, including ASD, than fusion in the short-term and the long-term? METHODS: A systematic search and review of the literature was undertaken to identify studies published through March 7, 2011. PubMed, Cochrane, and National Guideline Clearinghouse Databases as well as bibliographies of key articles were searched. Two individuals independently reviewed articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria which were set a priori. Each article was evaluated using a predefined quality-rating scheme. RESULTS: No significant differences were identified between fusion and dynamic stabilization with regard to VAS, ODI, complications, and reoperations. There are no long-term data available to show whether dynamic stabilization decreases the rate of ASD. CONCLUSIONS: There are no clinical data from comparative studies supporting the use of dynamic stabilization devices over standard fusion techniques.

SUBMITTER: Chou D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3604751 | biostudies-other | 2011 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. CLINICAL QUESTION: This study aimed to describe the outcome of stabilization surgery with dynamic instrumentation for degenerative disc disease. The results were compared with age- and gender-matched peers treated with traditional fusion with rigid instrumentation. If necessary, additional nerve elements decompression was undertaken in both groups. METHODS: This study analyzed the success rates of 25 patients aged 47.4 years (mean 95% confidence interval: 43.1-51.7) treated with stabilization of the involved vertebral dynamic unit(s) with either dynamic or rigid instrumentation with or without additional decompression. Clinical outcome was assessed with Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back pain, leg pain, and activity level. Satisfaction outcome was measured with Stauffer and Coventry overall satisfaction criteria and VAS for satisfaction. Health-related quality of life was estimated with Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires. Fusion rate and adjacent level(s) was checked with x-ray. Complications recorded in patients' files were evaluated and revision surgeries were stated as treatment failures. RESULTS: At the 4-year follow-up (range, 2-5 years) significant improvement was noted on some subjective parameters in both groups. No statistical differences were seen between the groups at final follow-up. Five patients (42%) in the rigid group and two patients (20%) in the dynamic group were rated good or excellent according to the overall Stauffer and Coventry satisfaction criteria. Radiologically, seven patients (58%) in the rigid group were undoubtedly fused and all the involved discs in the dynamic group continued to degenerate. Adjacent segments showed loss of disc height in both groups but only loss of upper adjacent discs in the rigid group was statistically significant. Two patients in the dynamic group and one patient in the rigid group required reoperation because of the pedicle screw misplacement. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate no significant difference between dynamic and rigid stabilization of the lumbar spine for patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD). However, the study is underpowered and further studies on larger and homogeneous group of patients should be undertaken. [Table: see text].

Project description:Study Design Randomized controlled trial. Objective Despite a large number of publications of outcomes after spinal fusion surgery, there is still no consensus on the efficacy of the several different fusion methods. The aim of this study was to determine whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) results in an improved clinical outcome compared with uninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) in the surgical treatment for chronic low back pain. Methods This study included 135 patients with degenerative disk disease (n = 96) or postdiskectomy syndrome (n = 39). Inclusion criteria were at least 1 year of back pain with or without leg pain in patients aged 20 to 65 with one- or two-level disease. Exclusion criteria were sequestration of disk hernia, psychosocial instability, isthmic spondylolisthesis, drug abuse, and previous spine surgery other than diskectomy. Pain was assessed by visual analog scale (pain index). Functional disability was quantified by the disability rating index and Oswestry Disability Index. The global outcome was assessed by the patient and classified as much better, better, unchanged, or worse. The patients were randomized to conventional uninstrumented PLF (n = 67) or TLIF (n = 68). PLF was performed in a standardized fashion using autograft. TLIF was performed with pedicle titanium screw fixation and a porous tantalum interbody spacer with interbody and posterolateral autograft. The clinical outcome measurements were obtained preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months postoperatively. The 2-year follow-up rate was 98%. Results The two treatment groups improved significantly from preoperatively to 2 years' follow-up. At final follow-up, the results in the TLIF group were significantly superior to those in the PLF group in pain index (2.0 versus 3.9, p = 0.007) and in disability rating index (22 versus 36, p = 0.003). The Oswestry Disability Index was better in the TLIF group (20 versus 28, p = 0.110, not significant). The global assessment was clearly superior in the TLIF group: 63% of patients scored "much better" in the TLIF group as compared with 48% in the PLF group (p = 0.017). Conclusions The results of the current study support the use of TLIF rather than uninstrumented PLF in the surgical treatment of the degenerative lumbar spine. The less optimal outcome after uninstrumented PLF may be explained by the much higher reoperation rate.

Project description:BackgroundManagement of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis is controversial. Surgery is widely used, but its effectiveness in comparison with that of nonsurgical treatment has not been demonstrated in controlled trials.MethodsSurgical candidates from 13 centers in 11 U.S. states who had at least 12 weeks of symptoms and image-confirmed degenerative spondylolisthesis were offered enrollment in a randomized cohort or an observational cohort. Treatment was standard decompressive laminectomy (with or without fusion) or usual nonsurgical care. The primary outcome measures were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) bodily pain and physical function scores (100-point scales, with higher scores indicating less severe symptoms) and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (100-point scale, with lower scores indicating less severe symptoms) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years.ResultsWe enrolled 304 patients in the randomized cohort and 303 in the observational cohort. The baseline characteristics of the two cohorts were similar. The one-year crossover rates were high in the randomized cohort (approximately 40% in each direction) but moderate in the observational cohort (17% crossover to surgery and 3% crossover to nonsurgical care). The intention-to-treat analysis for the randomized cohort showed no statistically significant effects for the primary outcomes. The as-treated analysis for both cohorts combined showed a significant advantage for surgery at 3 months that increased at 1 year and diminished only slightly at 2 years. The treatment effects at 2 years were 18.1 for bodily pain (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.5 to 21.7), 18.3 for physical function (95% CI, 14.6 to 21.9), and -16.7 for the Oswestry Disability Index (95% CI, -19.5 to -13.9). There was little evidence of harm from either treatment.ConclusionsIn nonrandomized as-treated comparisons with careful control for potentially confounding baseline factors, patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis treated surgically showed substantially greater improvement in pain and function during a period of 2 years than patients treated nonsurgically. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000409 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Dataset Information

Dynamic stabilization versus fusion for treatment of degenerative spine conditions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets