Dynamic compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine: a systematic review

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Botelho,Ricardo Vieira
Data de Publicação: 2014
Outros Autores: Bastianello Junior,Rafael, Albuquerque,Luciana DiniGianini de, Bernardo,Wanderley Marques
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302014000200151
Resumo: Objective: The objective of this review is to reveal the quality of published data and the effect size of DPFs compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine. Summary of background data: since 2002, several dynamic pedicle fixation (DPF) systems have been developed with the aim to stabilize the spine without the undesirable effects of rigid lumbar spine fixation. Nearly ten years later, there are several studies on these dynamic systems. Methods: A systematic review was done in MEDLINE/PubMED, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Trials and Google Scholar to assess the quality of published literature and the available studied outcomes in randomized controlled trials of DPF. Results: Only three papers described randomized trials studying DPF. One of them focused on protection of adjacent level disease provided by DPF. Conclusion: It was not possible to reveal any evidence for benefits using DPF compared to rigid fixation in surgery for lumbar spine.
id AMB-1_94de5d263a5a745233967dee5cff611a
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0104-42302014000200151
network_acronym_str AMB-1
network_name_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Dynamic compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine: a systematic reviewlumbar vertebraeintervertebral disc degenerationsurgical fixation devicesinternal fixatorsbone screwsspinal fusion Objective: The objective of this review is to reveal the quality of published data and the effect size of DPFs compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine. Summary of background data: since 2002, several dynamic pedicle fixation (DPF) systems have been developed with the aim to stabilize the spine without the undesirable effects of rigid lumbar spine fixation. Nearly ten years later, there are several studies on these dynamic systems. Methods: A systematic review was done in MEDLINE/PubMED, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Trials and Google Scholar to assess the quality of published literature and the available studied outcomes in randomized controlled trials of DPF. Results: Only three papers described randomized trials studying DPF. One of them focused on protection of adjacent level disease provided by DPF. Conclusion: It was not possible to reveal any evidence for benefits using DPF compared to rigid fixation in surgery for lumbar spine. Associação Médica Brasileira2014-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302014000200151Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.60 n.2 2014reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)instacron:AMB10.1590/1806-9282.60.02.013info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBotelho,Ricardo VieiraBastianello Junior,RafaelAlbuquerque,Luciana DiniGianini deBernardo,Wanderley Marqueseng2015-01-09T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0104-42302014000200151Revistahttps://ramb.amb.org.br/ultimas-edicoes/#https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||ramb@amb.org.br1806-92820104-4230opendoar:2015-01-09T00:00Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Dynamic compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine: a systematic review
title Dynamic compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine: a systematic review
spellingShingle Dynamic compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine: a systematic review
Botelho,Ricardo Vieira
lumbar vertebrae
intervertebral disc degeneration
surgical fixation devices
internal fixators
bone screws
spinal fusion
title_short Dynamic compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine: a systematic review
title_full Dynamic compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine: a systematic review
title_fullStr Dynamic compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Dynamic compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine: a systematic review
title_sort Dynamic compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine: a systematic review
author Botelho,Ricardo Vieira
author_facet Botelho,Ricardo Vieira
Bastianello Junior,Rafael
Albuquerque,Luciana DiniGianini de
Bernardo,Wanderley Marques
author_role author
author2 Bastianello Junior,Rafael
Albuquerque,Luciana DiniGianini de
Bernardo,Wanderley Marques
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Botelho,Ricardo Vieira
Bastianello Junior,Rafael
Albuquerque,Luciana DiniGianini de
Bernardo,Wanderley Marques
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv lumbar vertebrae
intervertebral disc degeneration
surgical fixation devices
internal fixators
bone screws
spinal fusion
topic lumbar vertebrae
intervertebral disc degeneration
surgical fixation devices
internal fixators
bone screws
spinal fusion
description Objective: The objective of this review is to reveal the quality of published data and the effect size of DPFs compared to rigid fixation in lumbar spine. Summary of background data: since 2002, several dynamic pedicle fixation (DPF) systems have been developed with the aim to stabilize the spine without the undesirable effects of rigid lumbar spine fixation. Nearly ten years later, there are several studies on these dynamic systems. Methods: A systematic review was done in MEDLINE/PubMED, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Trials and Google Scholar to assess the quality of published literature and the available studied outcomes in randomized controlled trials of DPF. Results: Only three papers described randomized trials studying DPF. One of them focused on protection of adjacent level disease provided by DPF. Conclusion: It was not possible to reveal any evidence for benefits using DPF compared to rigid fixation in surgery for lumbar spine.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302014000200151
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302014000200151
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1806-9282.60.02.013
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.60 n.2 2014
reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron:AMB
instname_str Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron_str AMB
institution AMB
reponame_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
collection Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||ramb@amb.org.br
_version_ 1754212831112200192

Registros relacionados