Is Dynesys dynamic stabilization system superior to posterior lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases?

December 22, 2020

Editorial

. 2020 Nov 26;8(22):5496-5500.

doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i22.5496.

Affiliations

Item in Clipboard

Editorial

Bao-Gan Peng et al.

World J Clin Cases.

2020.

. 2020 Nov 26;8(22):5496-5500.

doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i22.5496.

Affiliations

¹ Department of Spinal Surgery, The Third Medical Center, People’s Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing 100039, China. [email protected].
² Department of Spinal Surgery, The Third Medical Center, People’s Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing 100039, China.

Item in Clipboard

Abstract

Dynesys, a pedicle-based dynamic stabilization system, was introduced to overcome some undesirable complications of fusion procedures. Nevertheless, the theoretical advantages of Dynesys over fusion have not been clearly confirmed. The purpose of this editorial was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent Dynesys system with those who underwent posterior lumbar fusion according to the existing literature and to see if the application of the Dynesys system is superior to the traditional lumbar fusion surgery. According to published clinical reports, the short-term effects of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system are similar to that of traditional lumbar fusion surgery. Three comparative studies of Dynesys dynamic stabilization and fusion surgery with medium-term follow-up are encouraging. However, the results from four single-treatment-arm and small-sample studies of case series with long-term follow-up were not encouraging. In the present circumstances, it is not possible to conclude that the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system is superior to fusion surgery for lumbar degenerative diseases.

Keywords:

Complication; Dynamic stabilization system; Lumbar degenerative diseases; Lumbar fusion.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict-of-interest statement: The author declares that he has no current financial arrangement or affiliation with any organization that may have a direct influence on his work.

References

1. 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.
  
  –
  
  PMC
  
  –
  
  PubMed
1. Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Dipl-Ing , Claes L, Wilke HJ. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:418–423.
  
  –
  
  PubMed
1. Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, Keynan O, Wilson DR, Oxland TR. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: an in vitro study. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:913–922.
  
  –
  
  PMC
  
  –
  
  PubMed
1. Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B. Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:442–449.
  
  –
  
  PubMed
1. Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, Tohtz SW, Perka C. The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse: nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization vs nucleotomy alone. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:E109–E114.
  
  –
  
  PubMed