Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27029541›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2016

Dynamic posterior stabilization for degenerative lumbar spine disease: a large consecutive case series with long-term follow-up by additional postal survey.

R Greiner-Perth, N Sellhast, G Perler, D Dietrich, L P Staub, C Röder

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Lumbar Stabilization with DSS-HPSDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Material failure in dynamic spine implants: are the standardized implant tests before market launch sufficient?European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2019
    Article
  7. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

R Greiner-PerthOrthopädische und Neurochirurgische Gemeinschaftspraxis, Eppenreuther Straße 28, 95032, Hof, Germany.
N SellhastRegionalspital Emmental AG, Hospital Burgdorf, Oberburgstrasse 54, 3400, Burgdorf, Switzerland.
G PerlerInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Finkenhubelweg 11, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
D DietrichInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Finkenhubelweg 11, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
L P StaubInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Finkenhubelweg 11, 3012, Bern, Switzerland. lukas.staub@ispm.unibe.ch.
C RöderInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Finkenhubelweg 11, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine · CHUniversity of Bern · CHOrthopädische Praxis · DERegionalspital Emmental · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDynamic stabilization of the degenerated spine was invented to overcome the negative side effects of fusion surgery like adjacent segment degeneration. Amongst various different implants DSS(®) is a pedicle-based dynamic device for stabilizing the spine and preserving motion. Nearly no clinical data of the implant have been reported so far. The current analysis presents results from a single spine surgeon who has been using DSS(®) for the past 5 years and recorded all treatment and outcome data in the international Spine Tango registry. MATERIALS/

methodsFrom the prospectively documented overall patient pool 436 cases treated with DSS(®) could be identified. The analysis was enhanced with a mailing of COMI patient questionnaires for generating longer-term follow-ups up to 4 years.

results387 patients (189 male, 198 female; mean age 67.3 years) with degenerative lumbar spinal disease including degenerative spondylolisthesis (6.1 %) could be evaluated. The type of degeneration was mainly spinal stenosis (89.9 %). After a mean follow-up of 1.94 years, the COMI score and NRS back and leg pain improved significantly and to a clinically relevant extent. The postoperative trend analysis could not determine a relevant deterioration of these outcomes until 4 years postoperative. 10 patients were revised (2.6 %) and the implant was removed; in most cases, a fusion was performed. Another 5 cases (1.3 %) had an extension of the dynamic stabilization system to the adjacent level. 84.2 % of patients rated that the surgery had helped a lot or had helped. DISCUSSION: The results of this large consecutive series with a follow-up up to 4 years could demonstrate a good and stable clinical outcome after posterior dynamic stabilization with DSS(®). For degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine, this treatment seems to be a valid alternative to fusion surgery.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedOrthopedic ProceduresSpinal StenosisSpondylolisthesisDegenerative spine diseaseDynamic stabilizationSpine Tango

Identifiers

PMID27029541
OpenAlexW4233831280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.