ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2017
The influence of L4-S1 Dynesys® dynamic stabilization versus fusion on lumbar motion and its relationship with lumbar degeneration: a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medium and long-term radiographic and clinical outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization versus instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar spine diseases.BMC surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Changing rod stiffness to moderate stress of adjacent disc in oblique lumbar interbody fusion - a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Risk factors for screw loosening in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with Dynesys dynamic stabilization.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2025Article
- Index-level fusion and adjacent segment disease following dynamic stabilization for lumbar degenerative disc disease: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2024Article
- COMPARISON OF DYNESYS AND HYBRID SYSTEM FOR MULTI-SEGMENTAL LDD.Acta ortopedica brasileira · 2024Article
- Biomechanical properties of a novel cervical spine implant with elastic deformation: a cadaveric study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Comparison of long-term outcomes of spinal fusion surgeries supplemented with "topping-off" implants in lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.North American Spine Society journal · 2022Review
- Long-Term Outcome of Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Chinese medical journal · 2018Article
- Finite element simulation and clinical follow-up of lumbar spine biomechanics with dynamic fixations.PloS one · 2017Article
- Effect of Discectomy on Dynesys Dynamic Fixation in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.Pain research & managementArticle
- Postoperative Management Strategy of Surgical Site Infection following Lumbar Dynesys Dynamic Internal Fixation.Pain research & managementArticle
- Simulation of L-4 lumbar spine model of motorist exposed to vibration from speed hump.Journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of Dynesys® posterior dynamic stabilization (PDS) in the treatment of L4-S1 degenerative diseases and to assess the influence of postoperative motion on lumbar degeneration.
methodsIncluded in this retrospective study were patients with L4-S1 degenerative disease who underwent fusion or PDS from September 2010 to September 2014. Clinical outcomes were assessed by preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Preoperative and postoperative X-rays assessed range of motion (ROM) of the non-surgical and surgical levels and whole lumbar. MRI assessed degeneration of non-surgical levels.
resultsA total of 56 consecutive patients were divided into two groups: group A, PDS, and group B, fusion. Patient demographics and baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. In both groups, there was a significant difference between preoperative and postoperative VAS and ODI scores (P < 0.05). However, there was a significant difference in a 6-month follow-up ODI between the two groups (P < 0.05). X-rays showed PDS patients partially maintained surgical level ROM and non-surgical level ROM increased less than in the fusion group. MRI showed adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in both groups, and patients whose preoperative L3-4 Pfirrmann classification was higher than grade 2 had more ASD than lower than grade 2.
conclusionPDS can maintain surgical level ROM and had less influence on whole and non-surgical level ROM. Following PDS, patients recovered faster and had a better lumbar function. It may be a better choice for multi-level lumbar degenerative diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.