Comparison of the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease
There have been few studies comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes between the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The objective of this study is to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Dynesys and PLIF for lumbar degenerative dis...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2016-01, Vol.11 (1), p.e0148071-e0148071 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0148071 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | e0148071 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 11 |
| creator | Zhang, Yang Shan, Jian-Lin Liu, Xiu-Mei Li, Fang Guan, Kai Sun, Tian-Sheng |
| description | There have been few studies comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes between the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The objective of this study is to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Dynesys and PLIF for lumbar degenerative disease.
Of 96 patients with lumbar degenerative disease included in this retrospectively analysis, 46 were treated with the Dynesys system and 50 underwent PLIF from July 2008 to March 2011. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated. We also evaluated the occurrence of radiographic and symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD).
The mean follow-up time in the Dynesys group was 53.6 ± 5.3 months, while that in the PLIF group was 55.2 ± 6.8 months. At the final follow-up, the Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale score were significantly improved in both groups. The range of motion (ROM) of stabilized segments in Dynesys group decreased from 7.1 ± 2.2° to 4.9 ± 2.2° (P < 0.05), while that of in PLIF group decreased from 7.3 ± 2.3° to 0° (P < 0.05). The ROM of the upper segments increased significantly in both groups at the final follow-up, the ROM was higher in the PLIF group. There were significantly more radiographic ASDs in the PLIF group than in the Dynesys group. The incidence of complications was comparable between groups.
Both Dynesys and PLIF can improve the clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease. Compared to PLIF, Dynesys stabilization partially preserves the ROM of the stabilized segments, limits hypermobility in the upper adjacent segment, and may prevent the occurrence of ASD. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0148071 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1761243185</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A441791359</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_7eeb9e9b223d4508a99702e196722fad</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A441791359</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9f408287c3524e814c21966d2847de4ed7f863cef7c265c0f4431f145ee769003</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk99v0zAQxyMEYmPwHyCIhITgocW_YjsvSFPHoFKlIQq8Wq5zaV0lcbGTiSL-eJw1Gw3aA_LD-cfnvmef75LkOUZTTAV-t3Wdb3Q13bkGpggziQR-kJzinJIJJ4g-PJqfJE9C2CKUUcn54-SEcEmYzPBp8nvm6p32NrgmdWXabiC92DcQ9qG3urYmXbZ6ZSv7S7c2Qst9aKFOdVOkn12ceut8uujqlfbpvInrlSv26WUXerj8e3YBa2jAR5HrGMIG0AGeJo9KXQV4Ntiz5Nvlh6-zT5PF1cf57HwxMTwn7SQvGZJECkMzwkBiZgjOOS-IZKIABoUoJacGSmEIzwwqGaO4xCwDEDxHiJ4lLw-6u8oFNSQuKCw4JhGVWSTmB6Jweqt23tba75XTVt1sOL9W2rfWVKAEwCqHfEUILViGpM5zgQjEGwlCSl1ErfdDtG5VQ2Ggab2uRqLjk8Zu1NpdKyYo4ZxHgTeDgHc_Ogitqm0wUFW6Adfd3JsgkkkpIvrqH_T-1w3UWscH2KZ0Ma7pRdU5Y1jkmGZ5pKb3UHEUEMsgVllp4_7I4e3IITIt_GzXugtBzZdf_p-9-j5mXx-xG9BVuwmu6vr6C2OQHUDjXQgeyrskY6T6JrnNhuqbRA1NEt1eHH_QndNtV9A_vmUMpw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1761243185</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Zhang, Yang ; Shan, Jian-Lin ; Liu, Xiu-Mei ; Li, Fang ; Guan, Kai ; Sun, Tian-Sheng</creator><contributor>Park, Paul</contributor><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yang ; Shan, Jian-Lin ; Liu, Xiu-Mei ; Li, Fang ; Guan, Kai ; Sun, Tian-Sheng ; Park, Paul</creatorcontrib><description>There have been few studies comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes between the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The objective of this study is to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Dynesys and PLIF for lumbar degenerative disease.
Of 96 patients with lumbar degenerative disease included in this retrospectively analysis, 46 were treated with the Dynesys system and 50 underwent PLIF from July 2008 to March 2011. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated. We also evaluated the occurrence of radiographic and symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD).
The mean follow-up time in the Dynesys group was 53.6 ± 5.3 months, while that in the PLIF group was 55.2 ± 6.8 months. At the final follow-up, the Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale score were significantly improved in both groups. The range of motion (ROM) of stabilized segments in Dynesys group decreased from 7.1 ± 2.2° to 4.9 ± 2.2° (P < 0.05), while that of in PLIF group decreased from 7.3 ± 2.3° to 0° (P < 0.05). The ROM of the upper segments increased significantly in both groups at the final follow-up, the ROM was higher in the PLIF group. There were significantly more radiographic ASDs in the PLIF group than in the Dynesys group. The incidence of complications was comparable between groups.
Both Dynesys and PLIF can improve the clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease. Compared to PLIF, Dynesys stabilization partially preserves the ROM of the stabilized segments, limits hypermobility in the upper adjacent segment, and may prevent the occurrence of ASD.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148071</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26824851</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Care and treatment ; Clinical outcomes ; Complications ; Degeneration ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Intervertebral Disc Displacement - pathology ; Intervertebral Disc Displacement - rehabilitation ; Intervertebral Disc Displacement - surgery ; Lumbar Vertebrae - pathology ; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery ; Lumbosacral Region - pathology ; Lumbosacral Region - surgery ; Male ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Middle Aged ; NMR ; Nuclear magnetic resonance ; Orthopedics ; Pain Measurement ; Pain, Postoperative - physiopathology ; Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control ; Patients ; Physiological aspects ; Range of Motion, Articular - physiology ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Retrospective Studies ; Scoliosis ; Segments ; Spinal diseases ; Spinal fusion ; Spinal Fusion - methods ; Spinal Stenosis - pathology ; Spinal Stenosis - rehabilitation ; Spinal Stenosis - surgery ; Stabilization ; Treatment Outcome ; Vertebra ; Vertebrae</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2016-01, Vol.11 (1), p.e0148071-e0148071</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2016 Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2016 Zhang et al 2016 Zhang et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9f408287c3524e814c21966d2847de4ed7f863cef7c265c0f4431f145ee769003</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9f408287c3524e814c21966d2847de4ed7f863cef7c265c0f4431f145ee769003</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4732666/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4732666/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26824851$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Park, Paul</contributor><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shan, Jian-Lin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Xiu-Mei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Fang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guan, Kai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Tian-Sheng</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>There have been few studies comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes between the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The objective of this study is to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Dynesys and PLIF for lumbar degenerative disease.
Of 96 patients with lumbar degenerative disease included in this retrospectively analysis, 46 were treated with the Dynesys system and 50 underwent PLIF from July 2008 to March 2011. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated. We also evaluated the occurrence of radiographic and symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD).
The mean follow-up time in the Dynesys group was 53.6 ± 5.3 months, while that in the PLIF group was 55.2 ± 6.8 months. At the final follow-up, the Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale score were significantly improved in both groups. The range of motion (ROM) of stabilized segments in Dynesys group decreased from 7.1 ± 2.2° to 4.9 ± 2.2° (P < 0.05), while that of in PLIF group decreased from 7.3 ± 2.3° to 0° (P < 0.05). The ROM of the upper segments increased significantly in both groups at the final follow-up, the ROM was higher in the PLIF group. There were significantly more radiographic ASDs in the PLIF group than in the Dynesys group. The incidence of complications was comparable between groups.
Both Dynesys and PLIF can improve the clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease. Compared to PLIF, Dynesys stabilization partially preserves the ROM of the stabilized segments, limits hypermobility in the upper adjacent segment, and may prevent the occurrence of ASD.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Degeneration</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intervertebral Disc Displacement - pathology</subject><subject>Intervertebral Disc Displacement - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Intervertebral Disc Displacement - surgery</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - pathology</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Lumbosacral Region - pathology</subject><subject>Lumbosacral Region - surgery</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>NMR</subject><subject>Nuclear magnetic resonance</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - physiopathology</subject><subject>Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physiological aspects</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Scoliosis</subject><subject>Segments</subject><subject>Spinal diseases</subject><subject>Spinal fusion</subject><subject>Spinal Fusion - methods</subject><subject>Spinal Stenosis - pathology</subject><subject>Spinal Stenosis - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Spinal Stenosis - surgery</subject><subject>Stabilization</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Vertebra</subject><subject>Vertebrae</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk99v0zAQxyMEYmPwHyCIhITgocW_YjsvSFPHoFKlIQq8Wq5zaV0lcbGTiSL-eJw1Gw3aA_LD-cfnvmef75LkOUZTTAV-t3Wdb3Q13bkGpggziQR-kJzinJIJJ4g-PJqfJE9C2CKUUcn54-SEcEmYzPBp8nvm6p32NrgmdWXabiC92DcQ9qG3urYmXbZ6ZSv7S7c2Qst9aKFOdVOkn12ceut8uujqlfbpvInrlSv26WUXerj8e3YBa2jAR5HrGMIG0AGeJo9KXQV4Ntiz5Nvlh6-zT5PF1cf57HwxMTwn7SQvGZJECkMzwkBiZgjOOS-IZKIABoUoJacGSmEIzwwqGaO4xCwDEDxHiJ4lLw-6u8oFNSQuKCw4JhGVWSTmB6Jweqt23tba75XTVt1sOL9W2rfWVKAEwCqHfEUILViGpM5zgQjEGwlCSl1ErfdDtG5VQ2Ggab2uRqLjk8Zu1NpdKyYo4ZxHgTeDgHc_Ogitqm0wUFW6Adfd3JsgkkkpIvrqH_T-1w3UWscH2KZ0Ma7pRdU5Y1jkmGZ5pKb3UHEUEMsgVllp4_7I4e3IITIt_GzXugtBzZdf_p-9-j5mXx-xG9BVuwmu6vr6C2OQHUDjXQgeyrskY6T6JrnNhuqbRA1NEt1eHH_QndNtV9A_vmUMpw</recordid><startdate>20160129</startdate><enddate>20160129</enddate><creator>Zhang, Yang</creator><creator>Shan, Jian-Lin</creator><creator>Liu, Xiu-Mei</creator><creator>Li, Fang</creator><creator>Guan, Kai</creator><creator>Sun, Tian-Sheng</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160129</creationdate><title>Comparison of the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease</title><author>Zhang, Yang ; Shan, Jian-Lin ; Liu, Xiu-Mei ; Li, Fang ; Guan, Kai ; Sun, Tian-Sheng</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9f408287c3524e814c21966d2847de4ed7f863cef7c265c0f4431f145ee769003</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Degeneration</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intervertebral Disc Displacement - pathology</topic><topic>Intervertebral Disc Displacement - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Intervertebral Disc Displacement - surgery</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - pathology</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Lumbosacral Region - pathology</topic><topic>Lumbosacral Region - surgery</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>NMR</topic><topic>Nuclear magnetic resonance</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - physiopathology</topic><topic>Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physiological aspects</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular - physiology</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Scoliosis</topic><topic>Segments</topic><topic>Spinal diseases</topic><topic>Spinal fusion</topic><topic>Spinal Fusion - methods</topic><topic>Spinal Stenosis - pathology</topic><topic>Spinal Stenosis - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Spinal Stenosis - surgery</topic><topic>Stabilization</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Vertebra</topic><topic>Vertebrae</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Yang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shan, Jian-Lin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Xiu-Mei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Fang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guan, Kai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Tian-Sheng</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhang, Yang</au><au>Shan, Jian-Lin</au><au>Liu, Xiu-Mei</au><au>Li, Fang</au><au>Guan, Kai</au><au>Sun, Tian-Sheng</au><au>Park, Paul</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2016-01-29</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>e0148071</spage><epage>e0148071</epage><pages>e0148071-e0148071</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>There have been few studies comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes between the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The objective of this study is to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Dynesys and PLIF for lumbar degenerative disease.
Of 96 patients with lumbar degenerative disease included in this retrospectively analysis, 46 were treated with the Dynesys system and 50 underwent PLIF from July 2008 to March 2011. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated. We also evaluated the occurrence of radiographic and symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD).
The mean follow-up time in the Dynesys group was 53.6 ± 5.3 months, while that in the PLIF group was 55.2 ± 6.8 months. At the final follow-up, the Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale score were significantly improved in both groups. The range of motion (ROM) of stabilized segments in Dynesys group decreased from 7.1 ± 2.2° to 4.9 ± 2.2° (P < 0.05), while that of in PLIF group decreased from 7.3 ± 2.3° to 0° (P < 0.05). The ROM of the upper segments increased significantly in both groups at the final follow-up, the ROM was higher in the PLIF group. There were significantly more radiographic ASDs in the PLIF group than in the Dynesys group. The incidence of complications was comparable between groups.
Both Dynesys and PLIF can improve the clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease. Compared to PLIF, Dynesys stabilization partially preserves the ROM of the stabilized segments, limits hypermobility in the upper adjacent segment, and may prevent the occurrence of ASD.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>26824851</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0148071</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2016-01, Vol.11 (1), p.e0148071-e0148071 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1761243185 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Adult Aged Biology and Life Sciences Care and treatment Clinical outcomes Complications Degeneration Female Follow-Up Studies Hospitals Humans Intervertebral Disc Displacement - pathology Intervertebral Disc Displacement - rehabilitation Intervertebral Disc Displacement - surgery Lumbar Vertebrae - pathology Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery Lumbosacral Region - pathology Lumbosacral Region - surgery Male Medicine and Health Sciences Middle Aged NMR Nuclear magnetic resonance Orthopedics Pain Measurement Pain, Postoperative - physiopathology Pain, Postoperative - prevention & control Patients Physiological aspects Range of Motion, Articular - physiology Research and Analysis Methods Retrospective Studies Scoliosis Segments Spinal diseases Spinal fusion Spinal Fusion - methods Spinal Stenosis - pathology Spinal Stenosis - rehabilitation Spinal Stenosis - surgery Stabilization Treatment Outcome Vertebra Vertebrae |
| title | Comparison of the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T08%3A49%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20the%20Dynesys%20Dynamic%20Stabilization%20System%20and%20Posterior%20Lumbar%20Interbody%20Fusion%20for%20Lumbar%20Degenerative%20Disease&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Zhang,%20Yang&rft.date=2016-01-29&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=e0148071&rft.epage=e0148071&rft.pages=e0148071-e0148071&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0148071&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA441791359%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1761243185&rft_id=info:pmid/26824851&rft_galeid=A441791359&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_7eeb9e9b223d4508a99702e196722fad&rfr_iscdi=true |