Complications After Transpedicular Stabilization of the Spine

Ohlin, Acke; Karlsson, Magnus K.; Düppe, Henrik; Hasserius, Ralph; Redlund-Johnell, Inga

doi:10.1097/00007632-199412150-00007

Cited by 122 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The absence of radiolucency around the cage, no signs of cage subsidence or the presence of bridging bone in the intervertebral space were the criteria for a solid fusion. Screw loosening (defined as ''continuous lucency C1 mm'' around the screw [36]) and breakage of Dynesys Ò was also assessed on A/P and lateral X-rays. All patients signed the informed patient consent forms.…”

Section: Clinical Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Segment-by-segment stabilization for degenerative disc disease: a hybrid technique

Schwarzenbach¹,

Rohrbach²,

Berlemann³

2010

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients with multisegmental degenerative disc disease (DDD) resistant to conservative therapy are typically treated with either fusion or non-fusion surgical techniques. The two techniques can be applied at adjacent levels using Dynesys Ò (Zimmer GmbH, Winterthur, Switzerland) implants in a segment-by-segment treatment of multiple level DDD. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome of patients treated using this segment-by-segment application of Dynesys in some levels as a non-fusion device and in other segments in combination with a PLIF as a fusion device. A consecutive case series is reported. The sample included 16 females and 15 males with a mean age of 53.6 years (range 26.3-76.4 years). Mean follow-up time was 39 months (range 24-90 months). Preoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI), back-and leg-pain scores (VAS) were compared to postoperative status. Fusion success and system failure were assessed by an independent reviewer who analyzed AP and lateral X-rays. Back pain improved from 7.3 ± 1.7 to 3.4 ± 2.7 (p \ 0.000002), leg pain from 6.0 ± 2.9 to 2.3 ± 2.9 (p \ 0.00006), and ODI from 51.6 ± 13.2% to 28.7 ± 18.0% (p \ 0.00001). Screw loosening occurred in one of a total of 222 implanted screws (0.45%). The results indicate that segment-by-segment treatment with Dynesys Ò in combination with interbody fusion is technically feasible, safe, and effective for the surgical treatment of multilevel DDD.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Segment-by-segment stabilization for degenerative disc disease: a hybrid technique

Schwarzenbach¹,

Rohrbach²,

Berlemann³

2010

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Loosening of screws is a frequent problem in spinal instrumentation with pedicle screws [10,11]. It is often only noted as a radiolucency surrounding the pedicular screws, but in many cases loosening of the screws causes an unstable situation and loss of correction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improved extraction torque of hydroxyapatite-coated pedicle screws

Sandén¹,

Olerud²,

Johansson

et al. 2000

European Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…High stiffness decreases graft loading within the cage, a condition calling stress shielding. A metal implant thus slows down the fusion process, eventually resulting in pseudarthrosis, corrosion, wear, and ultimately migration [78,79,85,105]. A second disadvantage of metal implants is that they are radiopaque, and thus eclipse the fusion zone during radiological evaluations [77].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%