OBJECTIVE The Dynesys, a pedicle-based dynamic stabilization (PDS) system, was introduced to overcome the drawbacks of fusion procedures. Nevertheless, the theoretical advantages of PDS over fusion have not been clearly confirmed. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent PDS using the Dynesys system with those who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). METHODS The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database. Studies that reported outcomes of patients who underwent PDS or PLIF for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal disease were included. The primary efficacy end points were perioperative outcomes. The secondary efficacy end points were changes in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and back and leg pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores and in range of motion (ROM) at the treated and adjacent segments. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate weighted mean differences (WMDs), 95% confidence intervals, Q statistics, and I2 values. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group. RESULTS Of the 274 retrieved articles, 7 (which involved 506 participants [Dynesys, 250; PLIF, 256]) met the inclusion criteria. The Dynesys group showed a competitive advantage in mean surgery duration (20.73 minutes, 95% CI 8.76–32.70 minutes), blood loss (81.87 ml, 95% CI 45.11–118.63 ml), and length of hospital stay (1.32 days, 95% CI 0.23–2.41 days). Both the Dynesys and PLIF groups experienced improved ODI and VAS scores after 2 years of follow-up. Regarding the ODI and VAS scores, no statistically significant difference was noted according to surgical procedure (ODI: WMD 0.12, 95% CI −3.48 to 3.72; back pain VAS score: WMD −0.15; 95% CI −0.56 to 0.26; leg pain VAS score: WMD −0.07; 95% CI −0.47 to 0.32). The mean ROM at the adjacent segment increased in both groups, and there was no substantial difference between them (WMD 1.13; 95% CI −0.33 to 2.59). Although the United States is the biggest market for Dynesys, no eligible study from the United States was found, and 4 of 8 enrolled studies were performed in China. The results must be interpreted with caution because of publication bias. During Dynesys implantation, surgeons have to decide the length of the spacer and cord pretension. These values are debatable and can vary according to the surgeon's experience and the patient's condition. Differences between the surgical procedures were not considered in this study. CONCLUSIONS Fusion still remains the method of choice for advanced degeneration and gross instability. However, spinal degenerative disease with or without Grade I spondylolisthesis, particularly in patients who require a quicker recovery, will likely constitute the main indication for PDS using the Dynesys system.

BackgroundAs motion-preserving technique has been developed, the concept of hybrid surgery involves simultaneous application of two different kinds of devices, dynamic stabilization system and fusion technique. In the present study, the application of hybrid surgery for lumbosacral degenerative disease involving two-segments and its long-term outcome were investigated.

No abstract

In both CDA and ACDF patients, RASP developed, but CDA was associated with a delay in ASP development. A good clinical outcome was expected in CDA group, even when ASP developed. Restoration of cervical lordosis was an important factor in anterior cervical spine surgery.

OBJECT There is inconsistency among the perioperative management strategies currently used for chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH). Moreover, postoperative complications such as acute intracranial bleeding and cSDH recurrence affect clinical outcome of cSDH surgery. This study evaluated the risk factors associated with acute intracranial bleeding and cSDH recurrence and identified an effective perioperative strategy for cSDH patients. METHODS A retrospective study of patients who underwent bur hole craniostomy for cSDH between 2008 and 2012 was performed. RESULTS A consecutive series of 303 cSDH patients (234 males and 69 females; mean age 67.17 years) was analyzed. Postoperative acute intracranial bleeding developed in 14 patients (4.57%) within a mean of 3.07 days and recurrence was observed in 37 patients (12.21%) within a mean of 31.69 days (range 10–104 days) after initial bur hole craniostomy. The comorbidities of hematological disease and prior shunt surgery were clinical factors associated with acute bleeding. There was a significant risk of recurrence in patients with diabetes mellitus, but recurrence did not affect the final neurological outcome (p = 0.776). Surgical details, including the number of operative bur holes, saline irrigation of the hematoma cavity, use of a drain, and type of postoperative ambulation, were not significantly associated with outcome. However, a large amount of drainage was associated with postoperative acute bleeding. CONCLUSIONS Bur hole craniostomy is an effective surgical procedure for initial and recurrent cSDH. Patients with hematological disease or a history of prior shunt surgery are at risk for postoperative acute bleeding; therefore, these patients should be carefully monitored to avoid overdrainage. Surgeons should consider informing patients with diabetes mellitus that this comorbidity is associated with an increased likelihood of recurrence.