ArticleChinese medical journal2018
Long-Term Outcome of Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 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
- Dynesys system vs posterior decompression and fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Dynamic vs. Rigid: Transforming the Treatment Landscape for Multisegmental Lumbar Degeneration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Correlation of the single-segment dynamic stabilization with different segmental mobility and zygapophysial (facet) joint degeneration: a retrospective study in northern China.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Index-level fusion and adjacent segment disease following dynamic stabilization for lumbar degenerative disc disease: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2024Article
- Comparative clinical efficacy of percutaneous coaxial large-channel endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Article
- Long-term efficacy of Waveflex semi-rigid-dynamic-internal-fixation system in delaying intervertebral disc degeneration at adjacent segments and improving spinal sagittal imbalance.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Can Dynamic Spinal Stabilization Be an Alternative to Fusion Surgery in Adult Spinal Deformity Cases?International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Long-term Outcome of Isobar TTL System for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Diseases.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- The Effect of Unintended Facet Arthrodesis on the Treatment Outcome of Dynamic Neutralization System for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 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
- Anatomical parameters alter the biomechanical responses of adjacent segments following lumbar fusion surgery: Personalized poroelastic finite element modelling investigations.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Efficacy of the Dynesys Hybrid Surgery for Patients with Multi-Segmental Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Adjacent segment disease following Dynesys stabilization for lumbar disorders: A case series of mid- and long-term follow-ups.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Is Dynesys dynamic stabilization system superior to posterior lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases?World journal of clinical cases · 2020Article
- Arthrodesis versus dynamic neutralization: A short/mid- and long-term retrospective evaluation in degenerative disk disease treatment.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- Evaluation of DIAM™ Spinal Stabilization System for lower lumbar disc degenerative disease: A randomized, prospective, single-site study.Journal of orthopaedicsArticle
- Postoperative Management Strategy of Surgical Site Infection following Lumbar Dynesys Dynamic Internal Fixation.Pain research & managementArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany clinical studies over the past decade have indicated positive outcomes for patients treated with Dynesys dynamic stabilization for lumbar degenerative disease. However, long-term outcomes of Dynesys for lumbar spinal stenosis are rarely reported. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term clinical and radiologic outcomes for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated with Dynesys stabilization.
methodsThirty-eight patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were treated with Dynesys stabilization from July 2008 to March 2010. The minimal duration of follow-up was 72 months. The patients were divided into stenosis and spondylolisthesis groups according to degenerative spondylolisthesis. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS). Radiographic evaluations included range of motion (ROM) and the disc heights of stabilized segments and the upper adjacent segments. We also evaluated the occurrence of radiographic and symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD).
resultsThere were 23 patients in stenosis group and 15 patients in spondylolisthesis group. The ODI scores were significantly improved at the final follow-up evaluation, as compared to the baseline values (16.1 ± 5.7 vs. 57. 2 ± 14.2, t = 61.41, P < 0.01). The VAS scores for back and leg pain were significantly improved from 4.82 ± 0.89 and 4.04 ± 0.82 preoperatively to 0.93 ± 0.61 and 0.54 ± 0.51 postoperatively (t = 6.59, P < 0.01, and t = 5.91, P < 0.01, respectively). There were no differences between the two groups with respect to VAS and ODI scores. The ROM of stabilized segments decreased significantly from 7.8° ± 2.4° to 4.5° ± 1.5° (t = 7.18, P < 0.05), while the upper adjacent segments increased significantly from 8.3° ± 2.4° to 10.4° ± 2.4° (t = 2.87, P = 0.01). The change in disc height of stabilized segments was not significant (11.9 ± 2.1 preoperatively vs. 12.5 ± 1.5 postoperatively, t = 1.43, P = 0.15), whereas the decrease in disc height of the upper adjacent segments was significant (12.5 ± 2.0 preoperatively vs. 11.0 ± 1.7 postoperatively, t = 2.94, P = 0.01). The occurrence of radiographic and symptomatic ASD was 16% (6/38) and 3% (1/38), respectively.
conclusionsDecompression and Dynesys stabilization for lumbar stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis showed good long-term clinical and radiographic results. Lumbar stenosis with or without Grade I spondylolisthesis, particularly in patients <60 years of age with mild-to-moderate lumbar disc degeneration, would be one of the main indications for the Dynesys system.
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.