椎弓根固定的动态或混合型腰椎稳定的临床结果和并发症:一项系统的文献综述。

Q Medicine
Marion Prud'homme, Carlos Barrios, Philippe Rouch, Yann Philippe Charles, Jean-Paul Steib, Wafa Skalli
{"title":"椎弓根固定的动态或混合型腰椎稳定的临床结果和并发症:一项系统的文献综述。","authors":"Marion Prud'homme, Carlos Barrios, Philippe Rouch, Yann Philippe Charles, Jean-Paul Steib, Wafa Skalli","doi":"10.1097/BSD.0000000000000092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A systematic medline review.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>An overview of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization devices clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Fusion is the standard instrumentation for many pathologies of the lumbar spine. Worrying rates of failure, including adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), have consistently been reported. The interest for dynamic stabilization came from the need of minimizing the long-term complications related to the restriction of the lumbar motion. However, pedicle-based dynamic stabilization advantages and drawbacks remain controversial.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Articles about the clinical outcomes were identified by a comprehensive Medline search. The inclusion criteria were a minimum follow-up of 12 months, indications for lumbar dynamic stabilization, and assessment of clinical outcomes and adverse events. The studied parameters included self-reported outcomes (pain, disability, and satisfaction) and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 46 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were reviewed providing results for 2026 patients with a mean follow-up of 33 months. The postoperative improvements in terms of pain and disability were significant. Subjective assessment showed an overall patient satisfaction of 83.4%. Radiographic ASD occurred in 0%-34% of patients. Device breakage occurred in 0%-30%, and device loosening in 0%-72% of patients. The global amount of revision surgeries reached 9.4% mainly for breakage, ASD, or persistent pain, not always associated with screw loosening.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dynamic stabilization seems as safe and effective but benefits might partly come from decompressive gestures. Reported clinical outcomes seems to be comparable with outcomes published for fusion and no clear evidence of protection of the adjacent segments emerge from this mid-term review. Technical failures are design related but also linked with patient specificities. Relationships between sagittal balance and surgery outcomes are still rarely reported. Dynamic stabilization might display advantages in selected indications, such as moderate degeneration and beginning instability associated with clinical symptoms, but further clinical studies are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":50043,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques","volume":"28 8","pages":"E439-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Outcomes and Complications After Pedicle-anchored Dynamic or Hybrid Lumbar Spine Stabilization: A Systematic Literature Review.\",\"authors\":\"Marion Prud'homme, Carlos Barrios, Philippe Rouch, Yann Philippe Charles, Jean-Paul Steib, Wafa Skalli\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BSD.0000000000000092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A systematic medline review.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>An overview of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization devices clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Fusion is the standard instrumentation for many pathologies of the lumbar spine. Worrying rates of failure, including adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), have consistently been reported. The interest for dynamic stabilization came from the need of minimizing the long-term complications related to the restriction of the lumbar motion. However, pedicle-based dynamic stabilization advantages and drawbacks remain controversial.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Articles about the clinical outcomes were identified by a comprehensive Medline search. The inclusion criteria were a minimum follow-up of 12 months, indications for lumbar dynamic stabilization, and assessment of clinical outcomes and adverse events. The studied parameters included self-reported outcomes (pain, disability, and satisfaction) and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 46 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were reviewed providing results for 2026 patients with a mean follow-up of 33 months. The postoperative improvements in terms of pain and disability were significant. Subjective assessment showed an overall patient satisfaction of 83.4%. Radiographic ASD occurred in 0%-34% of patients. Device breakage occurred in 0%-30%, and device loosening in 0%-72% of patients. The global amount of revision surgeries reached 9.4% mainly for breakage, ASD, or persistent pain, not always associated with screw loosening.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dynamic stabilization seems as safe and effective but benefits might partly come from decompressive gestures. Reported clinical outcomes seems to be comparable with outcomes published for fusion and no clear evidence of protection of the adjacent segments emerge from this mid-term review. Technical failures are design related but also linked with patient specificities. Relationships between sagittal balance and surgery outcomes are still rarely reported. Dynamic stabilization might display advantages in selected indications, such as moderate degeneration and beginning instability associated with clinical symptoms, but further clinical studies are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques\",\"volume\":\"28 8\",\"pages\":\"E439-48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000092\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计:系统的医学文献回顾。目的:综述基于椎弓根的动态稳定装置的临床效果。背景资料总结:融合是许多腰椎病变的标准内固定。令人担忧的失败率,包括邻近节段变性(ASD),一直有报道。对动态稳定的兴趣来自于减少与腰椎活动受限相关的长期并发症的需要。然而,基于椎弓根的动态稳定的优点和缺点仍然存在争议。材料和方法:通过全面的Medline检索确定有关临床结果的文章。纳入标准为至少随访12个月,腰椎动态稳定适应症,临床结果和不良事件评估。研究参数包括自我报告的结果(疼痛、残疾和满意度)和并发症。结果:共审查了46篇符合纳入标准的文章,提供了2026例患者的结果,平均随访时间为33个月。术后疼痛和残疾方面的改善是显著的。主观评价患者总体满意度为83.4%。影像学上的ASD发生率为0%-34%。器械断裂发生率为0%-30%,器械松动发生率为0%-72%。全球翻修手术占9.4%,主要是骨折、ASD或持续性疼痛,并不总是与螺钉松动有关。结论:动态稳定似乎是安全有效的,但益处可能部分来自减压手势。报告的临床结果似乎与已发表的融合结果相当,并且从中期审查中没有明确的证据表明保护邻近节段。技术故障与设计有关,但也与患者的具体情况有关。矢状面平衡与手术结果之间的关系仍然很少报道。动态稳定可能在特定适应症中显示优势,例如中度退变和与临床症状相关的开始不稳定,但需要进一步的临床研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical Outcomes and Complications After Pedicle-anchored Dynamic or Hybrid Lumbar Spine Stabilization: A Systematic Literature Review.

Study design: A systematic medline review.

Objective: An overview of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization devices clinical outcomes.

Summary of background data: Fusion is the standard instrumentation for many pathologies of the lumbar spine. Worrying rates of failure, including adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), have consistently been reported. The interest for dynamic stabilization came from the need of minimizing the long-term complications related to the restriction of the lumbar motion. However, pedicle-based dynamic stabilization advantages and drawbacks remain controversial.

Materials and methods: Articles about the clinical outcomes were identified by a comprehensive Medline search. The inclusion criteria were a minimum follow-up of 12 months, indications for lumbar dynamic stabilization, and assessment of clinical outcomes and adverse events. The studied parameters included self-reported outcomes (pain, disability, and satisfaction) and complications.

Results: A total of 46 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were reviewed providing results for 2026 patients with a mean follow-up of 33 months. The postoperative improvements in terms of pain and disability were significant. Subjective assessment showed an overall patient satisfaction of 83.4%. Radiographic ASD occurred in 0%-34% of patients. Device breakage occurred in 0%-30%, and device loosening in 0%-72% of patients. The global amount of revision surgeries reached 9.4% mainly for breakage, ASD, or persistent pain, not always associated with screw loosening.

Conclusions: Dynamic stabilization seems as safe and effective but benefits might partly come from decompressive gestures. Reported clinical outcomes seems to be comparable with outcomes published for fusion and no clear evidence of protection of the adjacent segments emerge from this mid-term review. Technical failures are design related but also linked with patient specificities. Relationships between sagittal balance and surgery outcomes are still rarely reported. Dynamic stabilization might display advantages in selected indications, such as moderate degeneration and beginning instability associated with clinical symptoms, but further clinical studies are needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.16
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques features peer-reviewed original articles on diagnosis, management, and surgery for spinal problems. Topics include degenerative disorders, spinal trauma, diagnostic anesthetic blocks, metastatic tumor spinal replacements, management of pain syndromes, and the use of imaging techniques in evaluating lumbar spine disorder. The journal also presents thoroughly documented case reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信