ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2017
Medium-term effects of Dynesys dynamic stabilization versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of iatrogenic alterations on adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion surgery: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Medium and long-term radiographic and clinical outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization versus instrumented fusion for degenerative lumbar spine diseases.BMC surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Dynesys system vs posterior decompression and fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Dynamic vs. Rigid: Transforming the Treatment Landscape for Multisegmental Lumbar Degeneration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Changing rod stiffness to moderate stress of adjacent disc in oblique lumbar interbody fusion - a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Comparison of Clinical Efficacy in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Posterior Lumbar Fusion, and Hybrid Surgery.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Index-level fusion and adjacent segment disease following dynamic stabilization for lumbar degenerative disc disease: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2024Article
- Lumbar Total Disc Replacements for Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review of Outcomes With a Minimum of 5 years Follow-Up.Global spine journal · 2024Review
- COMPARISON OF DYNESYS AND HYBRID SYSTEM FOR MULTI-SEGMENTAL LDD.Acta ortopedica brasileira · 2024Article
- Clinical and radiological analysis of the effects of three different lumbar transpedicular dynamic stabilization system on disc degeneration and regeneration.Frontiers in surgery · 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
- Efficacy of the Dynesys Hybrid Surgery for Patients with Multi-Segmental Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Application of the IntraSPINE® interlaminar device in patients with osteoporosis and spinal stenosis: two case reports.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Upper and lower adjacent segment range of motion after fixation of different lumbar spine segments in the goat: anThe Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Preoperative facet joint arthropathy does not impact long-term clinical outcomes after lumbar-stability-preserving decompression and dynesys fixation.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Is Dynesys dynamic stabilization system superior to posterior lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases?World journal of clinical cases · 2020Article
- New combination of IntraSPINE device and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for rare skipped-level lumbar disc herniation: a case report and literature review.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Review
- Clinical efficacy and radiographic K-rod stabilization for the treatment of multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- Analysis of clinical effect and radiographic outcomes of Isobar TTL system for two-segment lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective To compare the medium-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for treatment of multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease. Methods Fifty-seven patients with multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease underwent Dynesys stabilization (n = 26) or PLIF (n = 31) from December 2008 to February 2010. The mean follow-up period was 50.3 (range, 46-65) months. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). Radiographic evaluations included disc height and range of motion (ROM) of the operative segments and proximal adjacent segment on lumbar flexion-extension X-rays. The intervertebral disc signal change was defined by magnetic resonance imaging, and disc degeneration was classified by the Pfirrmann grade. Results The clinical outcomes including the VAS score and ODI were significantly improved in both groups at 3 months and the final follow-up, but the difference between the two was not significant. At the final follow-up, the disc height of stabilized segments in both groups was significantly increased; the increase was more notable in the Dynesys than PLIF group. The ROM of stabilized segments at the final follow-up decreased from 6.20° to 2.76° and 6.56° to 0.00° in the Dynesys and PLIF groups, respectively. There was no distinct change in the height of the proximal adjacent segment in the two groups. The ROM of the proximal adjacent segment in both groups increased significantly at the final follow-up; the change was significantly greater in the PLIF than Dynesys group. Only one case of adjacent segment degeneration occurred in the PLIF group, and this patient underwent a second operation. Conclusions Both Dynesys stabilization and PLIF can improve the clinical and radiographic outcomes of multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease. Compared with PLIF, Dynesys stabilization can maintain the mobility of the stabilized segments with less influence on the proximal adjacent segment and may help to prevent the occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration. Dynesys is reliable for the treatment of multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease at the medium-term follow-up.
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.