Which radiographic parameters are linked to failure of a dynamic spinal implant?

Lumbar Stabilization with DSS-HPS® System: Radiological Outcomes and Correlation with Adjacent Segment Degeneration

Arthrodesis has always been considered the main treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Adjacent segment degeneration is one of the major topics related to fusion surgery. Non-fusion surgery may prevent this because of the protective effect of persisting segmental motion. The aims of the study were (1) to describe the radiological outcomes in the adjacent vertebral segment after lumbar stabilization with DSS-HPS^® system and (2) to verify the hypothesis that this system prevents the degeneration of the adjacent segment. This is a retrospective monocentric analysis of twenty-seven patients affected by degenerative lumbar disease underwent spinal hybrid stabilization with the DSS-HPS^® system between January 2016 and January 2019. All patients completed 1-year radiological follow-up. Preoperative X-rays and magnetic resonance images, as well as postoperative radiographs at 1, 6 and 12 months, were evaluated by one single observer. Pre- and post-operative anterior and posterior disc height at the dynamic (DL) and adjacent level (AL) were measured; segmental angle (SA) of the dynamized level were measured. There was a statistically significant decrease of both anterior (p = 0.0003 for the DL, p = 0.036 for the AL) and posterior disc height (p = 0.00000 for the DL, p = 0.00032 for the AL); there were a statistically significant variations of the segmental angle (p = 0.00000). Eleven cases (40.7%) of radiological progression of disc degeneration were found. The DSS-HPS^® system does not seem to reduce progression of lumbar disc degeneration in a radiologic evaluation, both in the dynamized and adjacent level.

Implant failure following pedicle based dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine

Pedicle-based dynamic stabilization (PBDS) devices such as Dynesys are promoted as an alternative and less invasive option for rigid stabilization of one and even more levels of the lumbar spine. Promising features of the Dynesys system, as well as shortcomings, became obvious in several clinical studies. Since 2012, we started using a new PBDS device as an alternative for the Dynesys, to avoid the screw loosening and the kyphosing effect. The objective is to compare failure rates between the Dynesys and Balan-C type PBDS implant and factors affecting outcome. In a retrospective study we investigated a total of 90 patients with lumbar pedicle screw dynamic stabilization (a group of 64 patiënts with Dynesys stabilization is compared to a group of 26 patients with Balan-C stabilization). Mean follow-up was 48 and 38 months, respectively. Using logistic regression analysis the impact of baseline characteristics such as gender, age, body mass index (BMI), indication for surgery, primary or revision surgery, single versus more level surgery, surgeon’s experience and type of the implant on implant failure was analyzed. We found a statistically significant difference in failure rates between the two systems (13% in the Dynesys group versus 62% in the Balan-C group). In multivariate analysis, type of implant was associated with implant failure (odds ratio : 13). Our current results call for an optimization of the pre-and post-marketing surveillance of pedicle-based dynamic stabilization.

A comparison study between hybrid surgery and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylosis

AIMS

Whether to perform hybrid surgery (HS) in contrast to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when treating patients with multilevel cervical disc degeneration remains a controversial subject. To resolve this we have undertaken a meta-analysis comparing the outcomes from HS with ACDF in this condition.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched for studies of HS and ACDF from inception of the study to 1 September 2019. Both random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to evaluate the overall effect of the C2-C7 range of motion (ROM), ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), heterotopic ossification (HO), complications, neck disability index (NDI) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Odom's criteria, blood loss, and operating and hospitalization time. To obtain more credible results contour-enhanced funnel plots, Egger's and Begg's tests, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In total, 17 studies involving 861 patients were included in the analysis. HS was found to be superior to ACDF in maintaining C2-C7 ROM and ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, but HS did not reduce the incidence of associated level ASD. Also, HS did not cause a higher rate of HO than ACDF. The frequency of complications was similar between the two techniques. HS failed to achieve more favourable outcomes than ACDF using the NDI, VAS, JOA, and Odom's scores. HS did not show any more advantages in operating or hospitalization time but did show reduction in blood loss.

CONCLUSION

Although HS maintained cervical kinetics, it failed to reduce the incidence of ASD. This finding differs from previous reports. Moreover, patients did not show more benefits from HS with respect to symptom improvement, prevention of complications, and clinical outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):981-996.

Topping-Off Technology versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-Analysis

The treatment effects of topping-off technique were still controversial. This study compared all available data on postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes of topping-off technique and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane were systematically reviewed. Variations included radiographical adjacent segment disease (RASD), clinical adjacent segment disease (CASD), global lumbar lordosis (GLL), visual analogue scale (VAS) of back (VAS-B) and leg (VAS-L), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), reoperation rates, and complication rates. Sixteen studies, including 1372 cases, were selected for the analysis. Rates of proximal RASD (P=0.0004), distal RASD (P=0.03), postoperative VAS-B (P=0.0001), postoperative VAS-L (P=0.02), EBL (P=0.007), and duration of surgery (P=0.02) were significantly lower in topping-off group than those in PLIF group. Postoperative ODI after 3 years (P=0.04) in the topping-off group was significantly less than that in the PLIF group. There was no significant difference in the rates of CASD (P=0.06), postoperative GLL (P=0.14), postoperative ODI within 3 years (P=0.24), and postoperative JOA (P=0.70) and in reoperation rates (P=0.32) and complication rates (P=0.27) between topping-off group and PLIF. The results confirmed that topping-off technique could effectively prevent ASDs after lumbar internal fixation. However, this effect is effective in preventing RASD. Topping-off technique is more effective in improving the subjective feelings of patients rather than objective motor functions compared with PLIF. With the development of surgical techniques, both topping-off technique and PLIF are safe.

Comparison between topping-off technology and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of chronic low back pain: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The difference between topping-off technique and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in postoperative outcomes is still controversial. The aim of this study is to compare all available data on outcomes of topping-off technique and PLIF in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

METHODS

Articles in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane were reviewed. Parameters included radiographical adjacent segment disease (RASD), clinical adjacent segment disease, range of motion (ROM), global lumbar lordosis (GLL), visual analog scale (VAS), visual analog scale of back, (VAS-B) and visual analog scale leg (VAS-L), Oswestry disability index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), reoperation rates, complication rates.

RESULTS

Rates of proximal RASD (P = .001) and CASD (P = .03), postoperative VAS-B (P = .0001) were significantly lower in topping-off group than that in PLIF group. There was no significant difference in distal RASD (P = .07), postoperative GLL (P = .71), postoperative upper intervertebral ROM (P = .19), postoperative VAS-L (P = .08), DOI (P = .30), postoperative JOA (P = .18), EBL (P = .21) and duration of surgery (P = .49), reoperation rate (P = .16), complication rates (P = .31) between topping-off group and PLIF.

CONCLUSIONS

Topping-off can effectively prevent the adjacent segment disease from progressing after lumbar internal fixation, which is be more effective in proximal segments. Topping-off technique was more effective in improving subjective feelings of patents rather than objective motor functions. However, no significant difference between topping-off technique and PLIF can be found in the rates of complications.

Material failure in dynamic spine implants: are the standardized implant tests before market launch sufficient?

PURPOSE

International Standards Organization (ISO) 12189 and American Society for Testing and Materials F2624 are two standard material specification and test methods for spinal implant devices. The aim of this study was to assess whether the existing and required tests before market launch are sufficient.

METHODS

In three prospective studies, patients were treated due to degenerative disease of the lumbar spine or spondylolisthesis with lumbar interbody fusion and dynamic stabilization of the cranial adjacent level. The CD HORIZON BalanC rod and S⁴ Dynamic rod were implanted in 45 and 11 patients, respectively.

RESULTS

A fatigue fracture of the material of the topping off system has been found in five cases (11%) for the group fitted with the CD HORIZON BalanC rod. In the group using the S⁴ Dynamic rod group, a material failure of the dynamic part was demonstrated in seven patients (64%). All three studies were interrupted due to these results, and a report to the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices was generated.

CONCLUSION

Spinal implants have to be checked by a notified body before market launch. The notified body verifies whether the implants fulfil the requirements of the current standards. These declared studies suggest that the current standards for the testing of load bearing capacity and stand ability of dynamic spine implants might be insufficient. Revised standards depicting sufficient deformation and load pattern have to be developed and counted as a requirement for the market launch of an implant. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Clinical experiences with a PEEK-based dynamic instrumentation device in lumbar spinal surgery: 2 years and no more

Background

Dynamic spine implants were developed to prevent adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and adjacent segment disease (ASDi). Purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes of “topping off” devices following lumbar spinal fusion procedure using a PEEK-based dynamic rod system. Moreover, this study focused on the hypothesis that “topping off” devices can prevent ASD.

Methods

This prospective nonrandomized study included patients with indication for single-level lumbar fusion and radiological signs of ASD without instability. The exclusion criteria were previous lumbar spine surgery and no sign of disc degeneration in the adjacent segment according to magnetic resonance imaging. All patients were treated with single-level lumbar interbody fusion and dynamic stabilization of the cranial adjacent segment. Patients underwent a clinical examination and radiographs preoperatively and at 1 and 2 years after surgery. Analyses were performed on clinical data collected with the German Spine Registry using the core outcome measure index (COMI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain.

Results

A total of 22 patients (6 male and 16 female) with an average age of 57.6 years were included in the study; 20 patients completed the follow-up (FU). The average COMI score was 9.0 preoperatively, 4.2 at the 1-year FU, and 4.7 at the 2-year FU. The average preoperative VAS scores for back and leg pain were 7.7 and 7.1, respectively. At the 1-year FU, the scores were 4.25 for back pain and 2.2 for leg pain, and at the 2-year FU, the scores were 4.7 for back pain and 2.3 for leg pain. At FU, failure of the dynamic topping off implant material was verified in four cases, and ASD of the segment cranial to the topping off was confirmed in three cases.

Conclusions

These results demonstrate significant improvements in clinical outcomes and pain reduction after lumbar spinal fusion with topping off at 2 years after surgery. However, the implant failed due to the high rate of implant failure and the development of ASD in the segment cranial to the dynamic stabilized segment.

The use of the DTO™ hybrid dynamic device: a clinical outcome- and radiological-based prospective clinical trial

Background

The purpose of this study was to assess the radiological and clinical outcome parameters following lumbar hybrid dynamic instrumentation with the focus on the adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and adjacent segment disease (ASDi).

Methods

In this prospective trial all patients presenting with degenerative changes to the lumbar spine have been included. Precondition was a stable adjacent level with/without degenerative alteration. The elected patients underwent a standardised fusion procedure with hybrid instrumentation (DTO™, Zimmer Spine Inc., Denver, USA). Patients’ demographics have been documented and the follow-up visits were conducted after 6 weeks, and then stepwise after 6 up to 48 months. Each follow-up visit included assessment of quality of life and pain using specific questionnaires (COMI, SF-36, ODI) and the radiological evaluation with focus on the adjacent level alterations.

Results

At a mean follow up of 24 months an incidence of ASD with 10.91% and for ASDi with 18.18% has been observed. In 9% a conversion to standardised fusion was needed. There was a high rate of mechanical complication: (1) screw loosening (52.73%), (2) pedicle screw breakage (10.91%), and (3) rod breakage (3.64%) after a follow up of a maximum of 60 months. There were no significant difference of COMI, ODI and SF-36(v2) in comparison to all groups but all 55 patients showed a clinical improvement over the time.

Conclusion

The dynamic hybrid DTO™ device is comparable to the long-term results after standardised fusion procedure, while a high rate of mechanical complication decreased the initial benefit.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at the ClinicalTrials Register (#NCT03404232, 2018/01/18, registered retrospectively).

Characterization of the behavior of a novel low-stiffness posterior spinal implant under anterior shear loading on a degenerative spinal model

PURPOSE

Dynamic implants have been developed to address potential adjacent level effects due to rigid instrumentation. Rates of revision surgeries may be reduced by using improved implants in the primary surgery. Prior to clinical use, implants should be rigorously tested ex vivo. The objective of our study was to characterize the load-sharing and kinematic behavior of a novel low-stiffness spinal implant.

METHODS

A human cadaveric model of degenerative spondylolisthesis was tested in shear. Lumbar functional spinal units (N = 15) were tested under a static 300 N axial compression force and a cyclic anterior shear force (5-250 N). Translation was tracked with a motion capture system. A novel implant was compared to three standard implants with shear stiffness ranging from low to high. All implants were instrumented with strain gauges to measure the supported shear force. Each implant was affixed to each specimen, and the specimens were tested intact and in two progressively destabilized states.

RESULTS

Specimen condition and implant type affected implant load-sharing and specimen translation (p < 0.0001). Implant load-sharing increased across all degeneration-simulating specimen conditions and decreased across the three standard implants (high- to low-stiffness). Translation increased with the three standard implants (trend). The novel implant behaved similarly to the medium-stiffness implant (p > 0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The novel implant behaved similarly to the medium-stiffness implant in both load-sharing and translation despite having a different design and stiffness. Complex implant design and specimen-implant interaction necessitate pre-clinical testing of novel implants. Further in vitro testing in axial rotation and flexion-extension is recommended as they are highly relevant loading directions for non-rigid implants.

Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization: literature review

Posterior dynamic stabilization (PDS) indicates motion preservation devices that are aimed for surgical treatment of activity related mechanical low back pain. A large number of such devices have been introduced during the last 2 decades, without biomechanical design rationale, or clinical evidence of efficacy to address back pain. Implant failure is the commonest complication, which has resulted in withdrawal of some of the PDS devices from the market. In this paper the authors presented the current understanding of clinical instability of lumbar motions segment, proposed a classification, and described the clinical experience of the pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilization devices.