A Short History of Posterior Dynamic Stabilization

Gömleksiz, Cengiz; Sasani, Mehdi; Öktenoğlu, Tunç; Özer, Ali Fahir

doi:10.1155/2012/629698

Cited by 39 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have reported that physiological movements and load carrying function after posterior dynamic stabilization lead healing of disk tissue; thus, rehydration begins even in patients with DDD. 6 7 8) DDD is a well-known pathology that causes one level or multilevel segmental instability. Most DDD patients have only back pain without neurologic deficit.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar Single-Level Dynamic Stabilization with Semi-Rigid and Full Dynamic Systems: A Retrospective Clinical and Radiological Analysis of 71 Patients

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study compares the clinical and radiological results of three most commonly used dynamic stabilization systems in the field of orthopedic surgery.MethodsA total of 71 patients underwent single-level posterior transpedicular dynamic stabilization between 2011 and 2014 due to lumbar degenerative disc disease. Three different dynamic systems used include: (1) the Dynesys system; (2) a dynamic screw with a PEEK rod; and (3) a full dynamic system (a dynamic screw with a dynamic rod; BalanC). The mean patient age was 45.8 years. The mean follow-up was 29.7 months. Clinical and radiological data were obtained for each patient preoperatively and at 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up.ResultsClinical outcomes were significantly improved in all patients. There were no significant differences in the radiological outcomes among the groups divided according to the system used. Screw loosening was detected in 2 patients, and 1 patient developed screw breakage. All patients with screw loosening or breakage underwent revision surgery.ConclusionsEach procedure offered satisfactory outcome regardless of which system was applied.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lumbar Single-Level Dynamic Stabilization with Semi-Rigid and Full Dynamic Systems: A Retrospective Clinical and Radiological Analysis of 71 Patients

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 22 However, it is critical to note that this study investigated both implants as stand-alone devices with no interbody spacer, constituting a motion-preserving construct which is a commonly referenced configuration for this class of devices. 23 – 25 Since the current study was designed to elucidate differences in fixation and load sharing of the two devices used in an adjunct-to-fusion model, no evaluation of the devices as stand-alone fixation was conducted. Thus no conclusions regarding their relative performance in the absence of an interbody spacer can be drawn.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability and Load Sharing Characteristics of a Posterior Dynamic Stabilization Device

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLumbar interbody fusion is a common treatment for a variety of spinal pathologies. It has been hypothesized that insufficient mechanical loading of the interbody graft can prevent proper fusion of the joint. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mechanical stability and anterior column loading sharing characteristics of a posterior dynamic system compared to titanium rods in an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) model.MethodsRange of motion, interpedicular kinematics and interbody graft loading were measured in human cadaveric lumbar segments tested under a pure moment flexibility testing protocol.ResultsBoth systems provided significant fixation compared to the intact condition and to an interbody spacer alone in flexion extension and lateral bending. No significant differences in fixation were detected between the devices. A significant decrease in graft loading was detected in flexion for the titanium rod treatment compared to spacer alone. No significant differences in graft loading were detected between the spacer alone and posterior dynamic system or between the posterior dynamic system and the titanium rod.ConclusionsThe results of this study indicate that the posterior dynamic system provides similar fixation compared to that of a titanium rod, however, studies designed to evaluate the efficacy of fixation in a cadaver model may not be sufficiently powered to establish differences in load sharing using the techniques described here.

show abstract

“…Recent studies have suggested that posterior dynamic devices may provide a better surgical alternatives for lumbar spinal disease [2]. The dynamic systems that can stabilize operated segments, restore the mobility and prevent the adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar operation [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which is the better posterior lumbar dynamic device: Dynesys or BioFlex?

Qiu

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the biomechanical characteristics of the lumbar posterior dynamic devices: the Dynesys system and the BioFlex system. Methods: We validated the FE model of an lumbar spine (L3-S1) established by transferring the data, collected by 3D CT scan, to the FE software ABAQUS and comparing these data with the data from published studies. Then, were reconstructed by the lumbar posterior dynamic devices to analyze the range of motion (ROM) and stress distribution on the lumbar posterior dynamic devices. Results: The current lumbar FE model was able to measure the biomechanical changes in a follow-up surgery simulation. The total ROM of the surgery simulation models was substantially decreased compared with the total ROM of the intact group, and the Dynesys system group had the closest total ROM to the intact group. The maximal von Mises stress concentrate at the middle part of the screws in Dynesys system, but at the Nitinol memory loop in BioFlex system. The maximal stress level was only 49 MPa in Dynesys system, but 164 MPa in BioFlex system. Conclusion: Through the comparison of ROM and the stress distribution of the prosthesis, we find that the Dynesys system maybe has a better theoretical outcome.

show abstract

A Short History of Posterior Dynamic Stabilization

Cited by 39 publications

References 49 publications

Lumbar Single-Level Dynamic Stabilization with Semi-Rigid and Full Dynamic Systems: A Retrospective Clinical and Radiological Analysis of 71 Patients

Lumbar Single-Level Dynamic Stabilization with Semi-Rigid and Full Dynamic Systems: A Retrospective Clinical and Radiological Analysis of 71 Patients

Stability and Load Sharing Characteristics of a Posterior Dynamic Stabilization Device

Which is the better posterior lumbar dynamic device: Dynesys or BioFlex?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About