Dynamic Posterior Stabilization versus Posterior Lumbar Intervertebral Fusion: A Matched Cohort Study Based on the Spine Tango Registry.

Bieri, Kathrin S; Goodwin, Kelly Jayne; Aghayev, Emin; Riesner, Hans-Joachim; Greiner-Perth, Ralph (2018). Dynamic Posterior Stabilization versus Posterior Lumbar Intervertebral Fusion: A Matched Cohort Study Based on the Spine Tango Registry. Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery, 79(3), pp. 224-230. Thieme 10.1055/s-0037-1615264

[img] Text
Bieri JNeurolSurgACentEurNeurosurg 2018.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (169kB) | Request a copy

PURPOSE  The primary aim of dynamic stabilization is to stabilize the spine and preserve function without overstressing adjacent segments, which is a potential risk of fusion surgery. However, direct comparative analyses of the two approaches are still limited, and little is known about the association of patient-reported outcomes with these treatment options. OBJECTIVE  To compare the clinical outcomes of dynamic posterior stabilization using the DSS Stabilization System (Paradigm Spine, LLC, New York, New York, United States) versus posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion (PLIF) based on data from a spine registry. We hypothesized that patient-reported outcomes of DSS are not inferior to those of PLIF. METHODS  We identified 202 DSS and 269 PLIF patients with lumbar degenerative disease with a minimum 2-year follow-up. A 1:1 propensity score-based matching was applied to balance the groups for various patient characteristics. The primary outcome was the change in the patient-reported Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI; a 0-10 scale) score. RESULTS  The matching resulted in 77 DSS-PLIF pairs (mean age: 67 years; average COMI follow-up: 3.3 years) without residual significant differences in baseline characteristics. The groups showed no difference in improved COMI score (p = 0.69), as well as in back (p = 0.51) and leg pain relief (p = 0.56), blood loss (p = 0.12), and complications (p > 0.15). Fewer repeat surgeries occurred after DSS (p = 0.01). The number of repeat surgeries per 100 observed person-years was 0.8 and 2.9 in DSS and in PLIF patients, respectively. Furthermore, shorter surgery time (p < 0.001) and longer hospital stays (p = 0.03) were observed for DSS cases. CONCLUSION  In a midterm perspective, DSS may be a viable alternative to PLIF because both therapies result in similar COMI score improvement. Advantages of DSS may be shorter duration of surgery and fewer repeat surgeries. However, more than half of DSS patients did not find a match with a PLIF patient, suggesting that the patient profiles may be different. Further multicenter studies are needed to better understand the most appropriate indication for each therapy.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine

UniBE Contributor:

Bieri, Kathrin Susan and Goodwin, Kelly Jayne

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health
300 Social sciences, sociology & anthropology > 360 Social problems & social services

ISSN:

2193-6315

Publisher:

Thieme

Language:

English

Submitter:

Tanya Karrer

Date Deposited:

15 Feb 2018 14:54

Last Modified:

31 Jan 2019 14:42

Publisher DOI:

10.1055/s-0037-1615264

PubMed ID:

29346828

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.111405

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/111405

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback