Complications of 2-Level Dynamic Stabilization: A Correlative Clinical and Radiological Analysis at Two-Year Follow-up on 103 Patients

The complication rate of 2-level dynamic stabilization was high in this study.CONCLUSION: Our results showed that complications (screw loosening or breakage and adjacent segment disease) are notrare after 2-level dynamic stabilization, unlike the acceptable results with the single-level dynamic system.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯

Objective & Hypothesis:AIM: To investigate the postoperative complications, such as screw loosening, screw breakage and adjacent segment disease(ASD), in patients who underwent surgery with 2-level dynamic stabilization systems.MATERIAL and METHODS: Postoperative complications, clinical improvements and radiological parameters in patients whounderwent surgery using a dynamic system for 2-level lumbar stabilization were retrospectively reviewed.

📊

Key Findings & Data:A total of 103 patientswith lumbar degenerative spinal instability underwent 2-level dynamic stabilization.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:The complication rate of 2-level dynamic stabilization was high in this study.CONCLUSION: Our results showed that complications (screw loosening or breakage and adjacent segment disease) are notrare after 2-level dynamic stabilization, unlike the acceptable results with the single-level dynamic system.

🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

AIM: To investigate the postoperative complications, such as screw loosening, screw breakage and adjacent segment disease(ASD), in patients who underwent surgery with 2-level dynamic stabilization systems.MATERIAL and METHODS: Postoperative complications, clinical improvements and radiological parameters in patients whounderwent surgery using a dynamic system for 2-level lumbar stabilization were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 103 patientswith lumbar degenerative spinal instability underwent 2-level dynamic stabilization. Clinical findings were reviewed at 2-year followup. Screw breakage and loosening were evaluated during this duration together with clinical findings.RESULTS: Visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were significantly decreased at the four-monthevaluation, and they were also decreased at the 1-year follow up and at the 24th postoperative month. ASD was diagnosed in twelve(8 females, 4 males) of the 103 patients in the follow-up radiological and clinical controls. There were 9 screw breakages and 4 screwloosening cases. The complication rate of 2-level dynamic stabilization was high in this study.CONCLUSION: Our results showed that complications (screw loosening or breakage and adjacent segment disease) are notrare after 2-level dynamic stabilization, unlike the acceptable results with the single-level dynamic system. The most probableexplanation is that the instrument system behaves more rigidly with every additional segment.

🔖

Cite This Article

CIPLAK, N. M., SÜZER, T., SENTURK, S., YAMAN, O., SASANİ, M., ÖKTENOĞLU, T., YILMAZ, A., ERBULUT, D. U., ÖZER, A. F. (2018). Complications of 2-Level Dynamic Stabilization: A Correlative Clinical and Radiological Analysis at Two-Year Follow-up on 103 Patients. Turkish Neurosurgery, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 5, 756–762. https://ajindex.com/articles/405354

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

Bozkus H, Senoglu M, Baek S, Sawa AG, Ozer AF, Sonntag VK, Crawford NR: Dynamic lumbar pedicle screw-rod stabilization: In vitro biomechanical comparison with standard rigid pedicle screw-rod stabilization. J Neurosurg Spine 12(2):183-189, 2010
Chamoli U, Diwan AD, Tsafnat N: Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilizers for degenerative spine: In vitro biomechanical testing and clinical outcomes. J Biomed Mater Res A 102:3324-3340, 2014
Erbulut DU, Zafarparandeh I, Ozer AF, Goel VK: Biomechanics of posterior dynamic stabilization systems. Adv Orthop 451956, 2013
Galbusera F, Volkheimer D, Reitmaier S, Berger-Roscher N, Kienle A, Wilke HJ: Pedicle screw loosening: A clinically relevant complication? Eur Spine J 24:1005-1016, 2015 Graf H: Lumbar instability: Surgical treatment without fusion. Rachis 412:123-137, 1992
Harrop JS, Youssef JA, Maltenfort M, Vorwald P, Jabbour P, Bono CM, Goldfarb N, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS: Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty. Spine 33:1701-1707, 2008
Kim CH, Chung CK, Jahng TA: Comparisons of outcomes after single or multilevel dynamic stabilization: Effects on adjacent segment. J Spinal Disord Tech 24(1):60-67, 2011
Lau S, Lam KS: Lumbar stabilisation techniques. Current Orthopaedics 21:25-39, 2007
Mohi Eldin MM, Ali AM: Lumbar transpedicular implant failure: A clinical and surgical challenge and its radiological assessment. Asian Spine J 8(3):281-297, 2014
Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK: Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization. Eur Spine J 11:198-205, 2002
Oktenoglu T, Erbulut DU, Kiapour A, Ozer AF, Lazoglu I, Kaner T, Sasani M, Goel VK: Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilisation of the lumbar spine: In vitro cadaver investigation and a finite element study. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 18 (11):1252-1261, 2015
Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE: Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion: Review of the literature. Spine 29:1938-1944, 2004 Pihlajamäki H, Myllynen P, Böstman O: Complications of transpedicular lumbosacral fixation for non-traumatic disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:183-189, 1997
Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B: Minimum four-year followup of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine 33:636-642, 2008
Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, Dipl-Ing, Claes L, Wilke HJ: Dynamic stabilization o