• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.52 no.4
• /
• pp.359-364
• /
• 2012

Objective : Transpedicular screw fixation has some disadvantages such as postoperative back pain through wide muscle dissection, long operative time, and cephalad adjacent segmental degeneration (ASD). The purposes of this study are investigation and comparison of radiological and clinical results between interspinous fusion device (IFD) and pedicle screw. Methods : From Jan. 2008 to Aug. 2009, 40 patients underwent spinal fusion with IFD combined with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). In same study period, 36 patients underwent spinal fusion with pedicle screw fixation as control group. Dynamic lateral radiographs, visual analogue scale (VAS), and Korean version of the Oswestry disability index (K-ODI) scores were evaluated in both groups. Results : The lumbar spine diseases in the IFD group were as followings; spinal stenosis in 26, degenerative spondylolisthesis in 12, and intervertebral disc herniation in 2. The mean follow up period was 14.24 months (range; 12 to 22 months) in the IFD group and 18.3 months (range; 12 to 28 months) in pedicle screw group. The mean VAS scores was preoperatively $7.16{\pm}2.1$ and $8.03{\pm}2.3$ in the IFD and pedicle screw groups, respectively, and improved postoperatively to $1.3{\pm}2.9$ and $1.2{\pm}3.2$ in 1-year follow ups (p<0.05). The K-ODI was decreased significantly in an equal amount in both groups one year postoperatively (p<0.05). The statistics revealed a higher incidence of ASD in pedicle screw group than the IFD group (p=0.029) Conclusion : Posterior IFD has several advantages over the pedicle screw fixation in terms of skin incision, muscle dissection and short operative time and less intraoperative estimated blood loss. The IFD with PLIF may be a favorable technique to replace the pedicle screw fixation in selective case.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.43 no.5
• /
• pp.221-226
• /
• 2008

Objective : The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the dynamic stabilization system in the treatment of degenerative spinal diseases. Methods : The study population included 20 consecutive patients (13 females, 7 males) with a mean age of $61{\pm}6.98$ years (range 46-70) who underwent decompression and dynamic stabilization with the Dynesys system between January 2005 and August 2006. The diagnoses included spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis (9/20, 45%), degenerative spinal stenosis (5/20, 25%), adjacent segmental disease after fusion (3/20, 15%), spinal stenosis with degenerative scoliosis (2/20, 10%) and recurrent intervertebral lumbar disc herniation (1/20, 5%). All of the patients completed the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Korean version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The following radiologic parameters were measured in all patients : global lordotic angles and segmental lordotic angles (stabilized segments, above and below adjacent segments). The range of motion (ROM) was then calculated. Results : The mean follow-up period was $27.25{\pm}5.16$ months (range 16-35 months), and 19 patients (95%) were available for follow-up. One patient had to have the implant removed. There were 30 stabilized segments in 19 patients. Monosegmental stabilization was performed in 9 patients (47.3%), 9 patients (47.3%) underwent two segmental stabilizations and one patient (5.3%) underwent three segmental stabilizations. The most frequently treated segment was L4-5 (15/30, 50%), followed by L3-4 (12/30, 40%) and L5-S1 (3/30, 10%). The VAS decreased from $8.55{\pm}1.21$ to $2.20{\pm}1.70$ (p<0.001), and the patients' mean score on the Korean version of the ODI improved from $79.58%{\pm}15.93%$ to $22.17%{\pm}17.24%$ (p<0.001). No statistically significant changes were seen on the ROM at the stabilized segments (p=0.502) and adjacent segments (above segments, p=0.453, below segments, p=0.062). There were no patients with implant failure. Conclusion : The results of this study show that the Dynesys system could preserve the motion of stabilized segments and provide clinical improvement in patients with degenerative spinal stenosis with instability. Thus, dynamic stabilization systems with adequate decompression may be an alternative surgical option to conventional fusion in selected patients.