• Title/Summary/Keyword: Intervertebral assisted motion

Search Result 2, Processing Time 0.015 seconds

Foreign Body Reaction after Implantation of a Device for Intervertebral Assisted Motion

  • Seo, Jun-Yeong;Ha, Kee-Yong;Kim, Young-Hoon;Ahn, Joo-Hyun
    • Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
    • /
    • v.59 no.6
    • /
    • pp.647-649
    • /
    • 2016
  • The device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM) is a dynamic implant that consists of a silicone bumper enveloped by a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fiber sack. Silicone and PET were used because of their biological inertness, but repetitive motion of the spine can cause wear on the implant nonetheless. The purpose of this study is to report a case of foreign body reaction (FBR) against a DIAM. A 72-year-old female patient presented with lower back pain and both legs radiating pain. She had undergone DIAM implantation at L4-5 for spinal stenosis 5 years previously. The intervertebral disc space of L4-5, where the DIAM was inserted, had collapsed and degenerative scoliosis had developed due to left-side collapse. MRI showed L3-4 thecal sac compression and left L4-5 foraminal stenosis. The patient underwent removal of the DIAM and instrumented fusion from L3 to L5. During surgery, fluid and granulation tissue were evident around the DIAM. Histopathology showed scattered wear debris from the DIAM causing chronic inflammation due to the resulting FBR. A FBR due to wear debris of a DIAM can induce a hypersensitivity reaction and bone resorption around the implant, causing it to loosen.

Interspinous Implant with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in Elderly Patients

  • Ryu, Sung-Joo;Kim, In-Soo
    • Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
    • /
    • v.47 no.5
    • /
    • pp.338-344
    • /
    • 2010
  • Objective : This study assessed the safety and efficacy of one level unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression (ULBD) with the placement of a device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM) compared with one level ULBD only in elderly patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Methods : A non randomized prospective analysis was performed on 16 patients who underwent one level ULBD with DIAM (Group A) and 20 patients with one level ULBD only (Group B) between February 2007 and March 2008. Radiographic imaging, visual analog scale (VAS) and MacNab outcome scale were obtained before and after surgery at a mean interval of 21 months (range 17-27 months). Results : The disc height, interpedicular distance, slip distance and segmental lordotic angle were similar between two groups. In the group A, there was no significant difference between the pre- and post-operative imaging in terms of the sagittal balance and disc height. Both groups showed significant improvement in the clinical outcomes. In addition, there was significantly less low-back pain in the group A than in the group B at the last follow up, while the clinical improvement of the leg pain and MacNab outcome scale showed no significant difference in the two groups. There were no major complications or DIAM associated complications. Conclusion : ULBD with DIAM is a safe and efficacious treatment for selective elderly patients with DLSS, particularly for relieving low back pain comparing to ULBD. ULBD with DIAM did not alter the disc height or sagittal alignment at the mean 21 months follow-up interval.