In vivo studies on flexion and extension of the lumbar spine after stabilisation with a non-fusion pedicle screw system

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Klauß,Jörg Rainer
Data de Publicação: 2012
Outros Autores: Richter,MJ, Bergert,Hendrik, Braunschweig,Rainer, Roehl,Klaus
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Coluna/Columna
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-18512012000300001
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine in vivo whether pre-operative mobility of the lumbar spine (overall and segmental) is retained after surgical intervention. METHODS: Functional imaging of the lumbar spine was performed in flexion and extension, using a lateral projection under standardised conditions. This allowed assessment of the overall mobility, mobility of the instrumented mobile segments and the disc height of the adjacent cranial segment (intervertebral space; IVS) before and after surgical intervention. Images were evaluated independently by a radiologist and an orthopaedic surgeon. A comparative analysis of preoperative and postoperative functional images was carried out with the aid of a computer and appropriate software (ACES) for further assessment of the extent to which the range of movement was retained. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, quality of life assessment) and the visual analogue scale (VAS, pain assessment) were used as clinical criteria and compared pre-and postoperatively. The mean follow-up (FU) intervals were 13.5 days (FU 1) and 19 months (FU 2). RESULTS: Radiological results showed that the overall mobility of the lumbar spine (L1 to S1) decreased on average by one third of the flexion/extension range, from 25.0º preoperatively to 17.6º postoperatively. The segmental mobility of the monosegmental stabilisation decreased on average from 3.7º to 2.3º. The caudal segments of the bisegmental dynamic stabilisation retained their preoperative movement range of 2.6º, with a postoperative range of 2.4º. The IVS did not change. The ODI improved postoperatively from 59 (preoperative) to 39/41 (FU1/FU2) points, while the VAS (during movement) improved from 7.6 (pre-op) to 4.4/4.5 (FU1/FU2). Computer-assisted analysis showed that small and functionally insignificant micro-motion of 0.4º (error 0.12%) remained in the stabilised and unfused mobile segment. CONCLUSION: Comparison of preoperative and postoperative measurements showed that overall mobility and segmental micro-motion were retained after non-fusion stabilisation of the lumbar spine with monosegmental and bisegmental instrumentation. The adjacent cranial segment (IVS) did not collapse. Activity levels (ODI) and pain symptoms (VAS) of the patients showed significant improvement at follow-up, comparable to that reported in the literature for conventional rigid spinal fusions.
id SBCO-1_307832f48539d0e3e89b262322d8690c
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1808-18512012000300001
network_acronym_str SBCO-1
network_name_str Coluna/Columna
repository_id_str
spelling In vivo studies on flexion and extension of the lumbar spine after stabilisation with a non-fusion pedicle screw systemRadiographyInternal fixatorsSpineBone screwsOBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine in vivo whether pre-operative mobility of the lumbar spine (overall and segmental) is retained after surgical intervention. METHODS: Functional imaging of the lumbar spine was performed in flexion and extension, using a lateral projection under standardised conditions. This allowed assessment of the overall mobility, mobility of the instrumented mobile segments and the disc height of the adjacent cranial segment (intervertebral space; IVS) before and after surgical intervention. Images were evaluated independently by a radiologist and an orthopaedic surgeon. A comparative analysis of preoperative and postoperative functional images was carried out with the aid of a computer and appropriate software (ACES) for further assessment of the extent to which the range of movement was retained. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, quality of life assessment) and the visual analogue scale (VAS, pain assessment) were used as clinical criteria and compared pre-and postoperatively. The mean follow-up (FU) intervals were 13.5 days (FU 1) and 19 months (FU 2). RESULTS: Radiological results showed that the overall mobility of the lumbar spine (L1 to S1) decreased on average by one third of the flexion/extension range, from 25.0º preoperatively to 17.6º postoperatively. The segmental mobility of the monosegmental stabilisation decreased on average from 3.7º to 2.3º. The caudal segments of the bisegmental dynamic stabilisation retained their preoperative movement range of 2.6º, with a postoperative range of 2.4º. The IVS did not change. The ODI improved postoperatively from 59 (preoperative) to 39/41 (FU1/FU2) points, while the VAS (during movement) improved from 7.6 (pre-op) to 4.4/4.5 (FU1/FU2). Computer-assisted analysis showed that small and functionally insignificant micro-motion of 0.4º (error 0.12%) remained in the stabilised and unfused mobile segment. CONCLUSION: Comparison of preoperative and postoperative measurements showed that overall mobility and segmental micro-motion were retained after non-fusion stabilisation of the lumbar spine with monosegmental and bisegmental instrumentation. The adjacent cranial segment (IVS) did not collapse. Activity levels (ODI) and pain symptoms (VAS) of the patients showed significant improvement at follow-up, comparable to that reported in the literature for conventional rigid spinal fusions.Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna2012-09-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-18512012000300001Coluna/Columna v.11 n.3 2012reponame:Coluna/Columnainstname:Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna (SBCO)instacron:SBCO10.1590/S1808-18512012000300001info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessKlauß,Jörg RainerRichter,MJBergert,HendrikBraunschweig,RainerRoehl,Klauseng2012-11-01T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1808-18512012000300001Revistahttps://www.revistacoluna.org/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpcoluna.columna@uol.com.br||revistacoluna@uol.com.br2177-014X1808-1851opendoar:2012-11-01T00:00Coluna/Columna - Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna (SBCO)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv In vivo studies on flexion and extension of the lumbar spine after stabilisation with a non-fusion pedicle screw system
title In vivo studies on flexion and extension of the lumbar spine after stabilisation with a non-fusion pedicle screw system
spellingShingle In vivo studies on flexion and extension of the lumbar spine after stabilisation with a non-fusion pedicle screw system
Klauß,Jörg Rainer
Radiography
Internal fixators
Spine
Bone screws
title_short In vivo studies on flexion and extension of the lumbar spine after stabilisation with a non-fusion pedicle screw system
title_full In vivo studies on flexion and extension of the lumbar spine after stabilisation with a non-fusion pedicle screw system
title_fullStr In vivo studies on flexion and extension of the lumbar spine after stabilisation with a non-fusion pedicle screw system
title_full_unstemmed In vivo studies on flexion and extension of the lumbar spine after stabilisation with a non-fusion pedicle screw system
title_sort In vivo studies on flexion and extension of the lumbar spine after stabilisation with a non-fusion pedicle screw system
author Klauß,Jörg Rainer
author_facet Klauß,Jörg Rainer
Richter,MJ
Bergert,Hendrik
Braunschweig,Rainer
Roehl,Klaus
author_role author
author2 Richter,MJ
Bergert,Hendrik
Braunschweig,Rainer
Roehl,Klaus
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Klauß,Jörg Rainer
Richter,MJ
Bergert,Hendrik
Braunschweig,Rainer
Roehl,Klaus
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Radiography
Internal fixators
Spine
Bone screws
topic Radiography
Internal fixators
Spine
Bone screws
description OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine in vivo whether pre-operative mobility of the lumbar spine (overall and segmental) is retained after surgical intervention. METHODS: Functional imaging of the lumbar spine was performed in flexion and extension, using a lateral projection under standardised conditions. This allowed assessment of the overall mobility, mobility of the instrumented mobile segments and the disc height of the adjacent cranial segment (intervertebral space; IVS) before and after surgical intervention. Images were evaluated independently by a radiologist and an orthopaedic surgeon. A comparative analysis of preoperative and postoperative functional images was carried out with the aid of a computer and appropriate software (ACES) for further assessment of the extent to which the range of movement was retained. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, quality of life assessment) and the visual analogue scale (VAS, pain assessment) were used as clinical criteria and compared pre-and postoperatively. The mean follow-up (FU) intervals were 13.5 days (FU 1) and 19 months (FU 2). RESULTS: Radiological results showed that the overall mobility of the lumbar spine (L1 to S1) decreased on average by one third of the flexion/extension range, from 25.0º preoperatively to 17.6º postoperatively. The segmental mobility of the monosegmental stabilisation decreased on average from 3.7º to 2.3º. The caudal segments of the bisegmental dynamic stabilisation retained their preoperative movement range of 2.6º, with a postoperative range of 2.4º. The IVS did not change. The ODI improved postoperatively from 59 (preoperative) to 39/41 (FU1/FU2) points, while the VAS (during movement) improved from 7.6 (pre-op) to 4.4/4.5 (FU1/FU2). Computer-assisted analysis showed that small and functionally insignificant micro-motion of 0.4º (error 0.12%) remained in the stabilised and unfused mobile segment. CONCLUSION: Comparison of preoperative and postoperative measurements showed that overall mobility and segmental micro-motion were retained after non-fusion stabilisation of the lumbar spine with monosegmental and bisegmental instrumentation. The adjacent cranial segment (IVS) did not collapse. Activity levels (ODI) and pain symptoms (VAS) of the patients showed significant improvement at follow-up, comparable to that reported in the literature for conventional rigid spinal fusions.
publishDate 2012
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2012-09-01
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=S1808-18512012000300001
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-18512012000300001
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1808-18512012000300001
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 Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Coluna/Columna v.11 n.3 2012
reponame:Coluna/Columna
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna (SBCO)
instacron:SBCO
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna (SBCO)
instacron_str SBCO
institution SBCO
reponame_str Coluna/Columna
collection Coluna/Columna
repository.name.fl_str_mv Coluna/Columna - Sociedade Brasileira de Coluna (SBCO)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv coluna.columna@uol.com.br||revistacoluna@uol.com.br
_version_ 1752126614226862080