Download PDF
Neurochirurgie Scan 2016; 04(03): 219-232
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-102078
Fortbildung
Spinale Neurochirurgie
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Dynamische lumbale Techniken: Erwartungen und Evidenz

Michael Stoffel
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 August 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Eine abnormale Bewegungsqualität mit abnormaler Kraftverteilung auf die anatomischen Bestandteile des Bewegungssegments der Wirbelsäule ist die Grundlage für schmerzhafte degenerative Prozesse an der Lendenwirbelsäule. Daher galt lange Zeit das komplette Aufheben der Beweglichkeit durch rigide Stabilisierung als Goldstandard der Behandlung. Bei nicht zufriedenstellenden Behandlungsergebnissen nach rigider Stabilisierung entwickelten sich Konzepte der dynamischen lumbalen Techniken. Darunter wird heutzutage eine Vielzahl unterschiedlicher Konzepte und Konstrukte subsumiert. Der folgende Artikel soll die derzeit verfügbaren Techniken vorstellen und die verfügbare Literatur darstellen und interpretieren. Dabei kann in diesem Rahmen nicht die komplette Studienlage wiedergegeben werden. Vielmehr wird eine Auswahl zugunsten der Studien mit der jeweils besten verfügbaren Evidenzqualität getroffen.

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Quint U, Wilke HJ. Grading of degenerative disk disease and functional impairment: imaging versus patho-anatomical findings. Eur Spine J 2008; 17: 1705-1713
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schmoelz W, Onder U, Martin A et al. Non-fusion instrumentation of the lumbar spine with a hinged pedicle screw rod system: an in vitro experiment. Eur Spine J 2009; 18: 1478-1485
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fritzell P, Hägg O, Nordwall A et al. Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain: comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Eur Spine J 2003; 12: 178-189
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A: 1497-1503
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Fernström U. Arthroplasty with intercorporal endoprothesis in herniated disc and in painful disc. Acta Chir Scand 1966; 357 : 154-159
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Bao QB, McCullen GM, Higham PA et al. The artificial disc: theory, design and materials. Biomaterials 1996; 17: 1157-1167
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ray CD. The PDN prosthetic disc-nucleus device. Eur Spine J 2002; 11 (Suppl. 02) 137-142
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Schönmayr R, Busch C, Lotz C et al. Prosthetic disc nucleus implants: the Wiesbaden feasibility study 2 years follow-up in ten patients. Riv Neuroradiol 1999; 12 : 163-170
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Klara PM, Ray CD. Artificial nucleus replacement: clinical experience. Spine 2002; 27: 1374-1377
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bertagnoli R, Schönmayr R. Surgical and clinical results with the PDN prosthetic disc-nucleus device. Eur Spine J 2002; 11 (Suppl. 02) 143-148
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Büttner-Janz K, Hochschuler SH, McAfee PC. The Artificial Disc. Berlin: Springer; 2003
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Braithwaite I, White J, Saifuddin A et al. Vertebral end-plate (Modic) changes on lumbar spine MRI: correlation with pain reproduction at lumbar discography. Eur Spine J 1998; 7: 363-368
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Boswell MV, Colson JD, Sehgal N et al. A systematic review of therapeutic facet joint interventions in chronic spinal pain. Pain Physician 2007; 10: 229-253
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Hellum C, Johnsen LG, Storheim K et al. Norwegian Spine Study Group. Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study. BMJ 2011; 342: d2786 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d2786.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hellum C, Berg L, Gjertsen Ø et al. Norwegian Spine Study Group. Adjacent level degeneration and facet arthropathy after disc prosthesis surgery or rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc: second report of a randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37: 2063-2073
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jacobs W, Van der Gaag NA, Tuschel A et al. Total disc replacement for chronic back pain in the presence of disc degeneration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 9: CD008326
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Wei J, Song Y, Sun L et al. Comparison of artificial total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative disc disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Orthop 2013; 37: 1315-1325
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Siepe CJ, Heider F, Wiechert K et al. Mid- to long-term results of total lumbar disc replacement: a prospective analysis with 5- to 10-year follow-up. Spine J 2014; 14: 1417-1431
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Grevitt MP, Gardner AD, Spilsbury J et al. The Graf stabilisation system: early results in 50 patients. Eur Spine J 1995; 4: 169-175 discussion 135
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Markwalder TM, Wenger M. Dynamic stabilization of lumbar motion segments by use of Graf's ligaments: results with an average follow-up of 7.4 years in 39 highly selected, consecutive patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2003; 145: 209-214 discussion 214
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hadlow SV, Fagan AB, Hillier TM et al. The graft ligamentoplasty procedure: comparison with posterolateral fusion in the management of low back pain. Spine 1998; 23: 1172-1179
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments: an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003; 16: 418-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bothmann M, Kast E, Boldt GJ et al. Dynesys fixation for lumbar spine degeneration. Neurosurg Rev 2008; 31: 189-196
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Grob D, Benini A, Junge A et al. Clinical experience with the Dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine: surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 324-331
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Strube P, Tohtz S, Hoff E et al. Dynamic stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion: part I. Biomechanical effects on lumbar spinal motion. Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 2171-2180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hoff E, Strube P, Gross C et al. Sequestrectomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation: no clinical benefit after 10 years follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38: 887-895
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hoppe S, Schwarzenbach O, Aghayev E et al. Long-Term Outcome After Monosegmental L4/5 Stabilization for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis With the Dynesys Device. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012; [Epub ahead of print]
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Payer M, Smoll NR, Oezkan N et al. Dynamic transpedicular stabilisation and decompression in single-level degenerative anterolisthesis and stenosis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2014; 156: 221-227
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bozkuş H, Senoğlu M, Baek S et al. Dynamic lumbar pedicle screw-rod stabilization: in vitro biomechanical comparison with standard rigid pedicle screw-rod stabilization. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 12: 183-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Stoffel M, Behr M, Reinke A et al. Pedicle screw-based dynamic stabilization of the thoracolumbar spine with the Cosmic-system: a prospective observation. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010; 152: 835-843
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Schmoelz W, Onder U, Martin A et al. Non-fusion instrumentation of the lumbar spine with a hinged pedicle screw rod system: an in vitro experiment. Eur Spine J 2009; 18: 1478-1485
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Maleci A, Sambale RD, Schiavone M et al. Nonfusion stabilization of the degenerative lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 15: 151-158
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Zucherman JF, Hsu KY, Hartjen CA et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating the X STOP interspinous process decompression system for the treatment of neurogenic intermittent claudication: two-year follow-up results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 1351-1358
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Anderson PA, Tribus CB, Kitchel SH. Treatment of neurogenic claudication by interspinous decompression: application of the X STOP device in patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 4: 463-471
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Strömqvist B, Berg S, Gerdhem P et al. X-Stop versus decompressive surgery for lumbar neurogenic intermittent claudication: a randomized controlled trial with 2 years follow-up. Spine 2013; 38: 1436-1442
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Davis RJ, Errico TJ, Bae H et al. Decompression and Coflex interlaminar stabilization compared with decompression and instrumented spinal fusion for spinal stenosis and low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis: two-year results from the prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38: 1529-1539
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kantelhardt SR, Török E, Gempt J et al. Safety and efficacy of a new percutaneously implantable interspinous process device. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010; 152: 1961-1967
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 38 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services: report of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 1989. DIANE Publishing; ISBN: 978-1-56806-297-6
    Google Scholar