Dynamic stabilization versus fusion for treatment of degenerative spine conditions

Systematic review

REFERENCES

• 1 Hilibrand A S, Carlson G D, Palumbo M A. et al . Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;  81 (4) 519-528
• 2 Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Koureas G. et al . Rigid, semirigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a correlative radiological and clinical analysis of short-term results.  Spine. 2004;  29 (7) 735-742
• 3 Korovessis P, Papazisis Z, Lambiris E. The role of rigid vs. dynamic instrumentation for stabilization of the degenerative lumbosacral spine.  Stud Health Technol Inform. 2002;  91 457-461
• 4 Kaner T, Dalbayrak S, Oktenoglu T. et al . Comparison of posterior dynamic and posterior rigid transpedicular stabilization with fusion to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis.  Orthopedics. 2010;  33 (5) 309
• 5 Ozer A F, Crawford N R, Sasani M. et al . Dynamic lumbar pedicle screw-rod stabilization: two-year follow-up and comparison with fusion.  Open Orthop J. 2010;  4 137-141
• 6 Lee S H, Lee J H, Hong S W. et al . Spinopelvic alignment after interspinous soft stabilization with a tension band system in grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.  Spine. 2010;  35 (15) E691-701
• 7 FDA Orthopedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel .FDA Executive Summary for Zimmer Spine's Dynesys Spinal System. Available at: www.fda.gov/downloads/advisorycommittees/committeesmeetingmaterials/medicaldevices/medicaldevicesadvisorycommittee/orthopaedicandrehabilitationdevicespanel/ucm188734.pdf Accessed 2009
• 8 FDA News Release .FDA Orders Postmarket Surveillance Studies on Certain Spinal Systems – FDA to request premarket clinical data for new versions of these devices. Available at: www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm185312.htm Accessed October 5, 2009

EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVE

The controversy surrounding the role and actual function of so-called „dynamic“ fixation devices was reflected in the reviewers' comments. The devices in question are different from one another and defy simple biomechanical categorization. Their ability to provide long-term stabilization of a damaged operated-on segment remains to be seen – toggle loosening, implant breakage, foreign body reactions all await further clarification.

The other question that remains unanswered: Are patients with dynamic stabilization devices still mobile in their target level, or did they in fact inadvertently fuse? As more of these devices push on the market, a comparative biomechanical analysis using variety of loading mechanisms, including load to failure and fatigue loading together with monitoring of adjacent segment disc mechanics would appear to be a helpful first step to allow clinicians to understand the effects of the devices that are being offered for implantation. Again, at this time the basic first step, indications remain unclear. Then, the same can be said for the phenomenon of ‘adjacent disc disease.’ Is it patient borne, surgeon created, or a mixture of both? It is this first step that we need to understand before we can move ahead and try to identify preventative variables.