Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2018; 79(03): 224-230
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1615264
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Dynamic Posterior Stabilization versus Posterior Lumbar Intervertebral Fusion: A Matched Cohort Study Based on the Spine Tango Registry

Kathrin S. Bieri
1   SwissRDL, Universitat Bern Institut fur Sozial- und Praventivmedizin, Bern, BE, Switzerland
,
Kelly Goodwin
1   SwissRDL, Universitat Bern Institut fur Sozial- und Praventivmedizin, Bern, BE, Switzerland
,
Emin Aghayev
2   Department of Research and Development, Schulthess Klinik, Zurich, ZH, Switzerland
,
Hans-Joachim Riesner
3   Department of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Military Hospital, Ulm, Germany
,
Ralph Greiner-Perth
4   Department of Spine, Centre for Orthopaedics and Neurosurgery, Hof, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

10 July 2017

25 September 2017

Publication Date:
18 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose The primary aim of dynamic stabilization is to stabilize the spine and preserve function without overstressing adjacent segments, which is a potential risk of fusion surgery. However, direct comparative analyses of the two approaches are still limited, and little is known about the association of patient-reported outcomes with these treatment options.

Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of dynamic posterior stabilization using the DSS Stabilization System (Paradigm Spine, LLC, New York, New York, United States) versus posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion (PLIF) based on data from a spine registry. We hypothesized that patient-reported outcomes of DSS are not inferior to those of PLIF.

Methods We identified 202 DSS and 269 PLIF patients with lumbar degenerative disease with a minimum 2-year follow-up. A 1:1 propensity score–based matching was applied to balance the groups for various patient characteristics. The primary outcome was the change in the patient-reported Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI; a 0–10 scale) score.

Results The matching resulted in 77 DSS-PLIF pairs (mean age: 67 years; average COMI follow-up: 3.3 years) without residual significant differences in baseline characteristics. The groups showed no difference in improved COMI score (p = 0.69), as well as in back (p = 0.51) and leg pain relief (p = 0.56), blood loss (p = 0.12), and complications (p > 0.15). Fewer repeat surgeries occurred after DSS (p = 0.01). The number of repeat surgeries per 100 observed person-years was 0.8 and 2.9 in DSS and in PLIF patients, respectively. Furthermore, shorter surgery time (p < 0.001) and longer hospital stays (p = 0.03) were observed for DSS cases.

Conclusion In a midterm perspective, DSS may be a viable alternative to PLIF because both therapies result in similar COMI score improvement. Advantages of DSS may be shorter duration of surgery and fewer repeat surgeries. However, more than half of DSS patients did not find a match with a PLIF patient, suggesting that the patient profiles may be different. Further multicenter studies are needed to better understand the most appropriate indication for each therapy.

Keywords

dynamic stabilization - fusion - degenerative spine disease - propensity score-based matching - registry
 

  • References

  • 1 Greiner-Perth R, Boehm H, Allam Y, Elsaghir H, Franke J. Reoperation rate after instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a report on 1680 cases. Spine 2004; 29 (22) 2516-2520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bono CM, Lee CK. Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004; 29 (04) 455-463 ; discussion Z5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kleinstück FS, Grob D, Lattig F. , et al. The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine 2009; 34 (11) 1198-1203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine 2004; 29 (17) 1938-1944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ames C, Traynelis VC, Vaccaro AR. Introduction. Dynamic stabilization of the spine. Neurosurg Focus 2016; 40 (01) E1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Prud'homme M, Barrios C, Rouch P, Charles YP, Steib JP, Skalli W. Clinical outcomes and complications after pedicle-anchored dynamic or hybrid lumbar spine stabilization: a systematic literature review. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28 (08) E439-E448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lee CH, Jahng TA, Hyun SJ. , et al. Dynamic stabilization using the Dynesys system versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal disease: a clinical and radiological outcomes-based meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus 2016; 40 (01) E7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chou D, Lau D, Skelly A, Ecker E. Dynamic stabilization versus fusion for treatment of degenerative spine conditions. Evid Based Spine Care J 2011; 2 (03) 33-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Claes L, Wilke HJ. Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc: an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J 2006; 15 (08) 1276-1285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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 (04) 418-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Käfer W, Cakir B, Midderhoff S, Reichel H, Wilke HJ. Circumferential dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine: a biomechanical analysis. Eur Spine J 2014; 23 (11) 2330-2339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wilke HJ, Heuer F, Schmidt H. Prospective design delineation and subsequent in vitro evaluation of a new posterior dynamic stabilization system. Spine 2009; 34 (03) 255-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bertagnoli R. Functional pedicle based posterior dynamic stabilization system (DSS): first results. Paper presented at: International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery annual meeting; April 27–30, 2011; Las Vegas, NV
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lorio MP, Lewis BM, Hubbard RC. Post-market surveillance pedicle based Dynamic Stabilization System (DSS). Paper presented at: International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery annual meeting; April 3–5, 2013; Vancouver, BC, Canada
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Greiner-Perth R, Sellhast N, Perler G, Dietrich D, Staub LP, Röder C. Dynamic posterior stabilization for degenerative lumbar spine disease: a large consecutive case series with long-term follow-up by additional postal survey. Eur Spine J 2016; 25 (08) 2563-2570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Staub LP, Ryser C, Röder C. , et al. Total disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical interbody fusion: use of the Spine Tango registry to supplement the evidence from randomized control trials. Spine J 2016; 16 (02) 136-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R. , et al. Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go?. Eur Spine J 2005; 14 (10) 1014-1026
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70 (01) 41-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Parsons LS. Performing a 1:N case-control match on propensity score. Available at: http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi29/165-29.pdf . Accessed August 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Munting E, Röder C, Sobottke R, Dietrich D, Aghayev E. ; Spine Tango Contributors. Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score-based study from the Spine Tango registry. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (02) 358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS. , et al. The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 2009; 18 (Suppl. 03) 374-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Labek G, Thaler M, Janda W, Agreiter M, Stöckl B. Revision rates after total joint replacement: cumulative results from worldwide joint register datasets. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (03) 293-297
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hill AB, Doll R. Lung cancer and tobacco; the B.M.J.'s questions answered. BMJ 1956; 1 (4976): 1160-1163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Zhang Y, Shan JL, Liu XM, Li F, Guan K, Sun TS. Comparison of the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease. PLoS One 2016; 11 (01) e0148071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Haddad B, Makki D, Konan S, Park D, Khan W, Okafor B. Dynesys dynamic stabilization: less good outcome than lumbar fusion at 4-year follow-up. Acta Orthop Belg 2013; 79 (01) 97-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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. 02) S170-S178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Yang M, Li C, Chen Z, Bai Y, Li M. Short term outcome of posterior dynamic stabilization system in degenerative lumbar diseases. Indian J Orthop 2014; 48 (06) 574-581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fei H, Xu J, Wang S, Xie Y, Ji F, Xu Y. Comparison between posterior dynamic stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative disc disease: a prospective cohort study. J Orthop Surg 2015; 10: 87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Phillips FM, Slosar PJ, Youssef JA, Andersson G, Papatheofanis F. Lumbar spine fusion for chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease: a systematic review. Spine 2013; 38 (07) E409-E422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lee JC, Kim Y, Soh JW, Shin BJ. Risk factors of adjacent segment disease requiring surgery after lumbar spinal fusion: comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion. Spine 2014; 39 (05) E339-E345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Försth P, Ólafsson G, Carlsson T. , et al. A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med 2016; 374 (15) 1413-1423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Röder C, Baumgärtner B, Berlemann U, Aghayev E. Superior outcomes of decompression with an interlaminar dynamic device versus decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and back pain: a cross registry study. Eur Spine J 2015; 24 (10) 2228-2235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Davis R, Auerbach JD, Bae H, Errico TJ. Can low-grade spondylolisthesis be effectively treated by either coflex interlaminar stabilization or laminectomy and posterior spinal fusion? Two-year clinical and radiographic results from the randomized, prospective, multicenter US investigational device exemption trial: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2013; 19 (02) 174-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B. Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 2006; 31 (04) 442-449
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar