Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Hsuan-Kan Chang x
  • By Author: Kuo, Chao-Hung x
Clear All Modify Search
Free access

Chao-Hung Kuo, Peng-Yuan Chang, Jau-Ching Wu, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Li-Yu Fay, Tsung-Hsi Tu, Henrich Cheng and Wen-Cheng Huang

OBJECTIVE

In the past decade, dynamic stabilization has been an emerging option of surgical treatment for lumbar spondylosis. However, the application of this dynamic construct for mild spondylolisthesis and its clinical outcomes remain uncertain. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for the management of single-level spondylolisthesis at L4–5.

METHODS

This study retrospectively reviewed 91 consecutive patients with Meyerding Grade I spondylolisthesis at L4–5 who were managed with surgery. Patients were divided into 2 groups: DDS and MI-TLIF. The DDS group was composed of patients who underwent standard laminectomy and the DDS system. The MI-TLIF group was composed of patients who underwent MI-TLIF. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by visual analog scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores at each time point of evaluation. Evaluations included radiographs and CT scans for every patient for 2 years after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 86 patients with L4–5 spondylolisthesis completed the follow-up of more than 2 years and were included in the analysis (follow-up rate of 94.5%). There were 64 patients in the DDS group and 22 patients in the MI-TLIF group, and the overall mean follow-up was 32.7 months. Between the 2 groups, there were no differences in demographic data (e.g., age, sex, and body mass index) or preoperative clinical evaluations (e.g., visual analog scale back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores). The mean estimated blood loss of the MI-TLIF group was lower, whereas the operation time was longer compared with the DDS group (both p < 0.001). For both groups, clinical outcomes were significantly improved at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery compared with preoperative clinical status. Moreover, there were no differences between the 2 groups in clinical outcomes at each evaluation time point. Radiological evaluations were also similar and the complication rates were equally low in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

At 32.7 months postoperation, the clinical and radiological outcomes of DDS were similar to those of MI-TLIF for Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4–5. DDS might be an alternative to standard arthrodesis in mild lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, unlike fusion, dynamic implants have issues of wearing and loosening in the long term. Thus, the comparable results between the 2 groups in this study require longer follow-up to corroborate.

Restricted access

Tsung-Hsi Tu, Chu-Yi Lee, Chao-Hung Kuo, Jau-Ching Wu, Hsuan-Kan Chang, Li-Yu Fay, Wen-Cheng Huang and Henrich Cheng

OBJECTIVE

The published clinical trials of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) have unanimously demonstrated the success of preservation of motion (average 7°–9°) at the index level for up to 10 years postoperatively. The inclusion criteria in these trials usually required patients to have evident mobility at the level to be treated (≥ 2° on lateral flexion-extension radiographs) prior to the surgery. Although the mean range of motion (ROM) remained similar after CDA, it was unclear in these trials if patients with less preoperative ROM would have different outcomes than patients with more ROM.

METHODS

A series of consecutive patients who underwent CDA at the level of C5–6 were followed up and retrospectively reviewed. The indications for surgery were medically refractory cervical radiculopathy, myelopathy, or both, caused by cervical disc herniation or spondylosis. All patients were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: a less-mobile group, which consisted of those patients who had an ROM of ≤ 5° at C5–6 preoperatively, or a more-mobile group, which consisted of patients whose ROM at C5–6 was > 5° preoperatively. Clinical outcomes, including visual analog scale, Neck Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scale scores, were evaluated at each time point. Radiological outcomes were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients who had follow-up for more than 2 years were analyzed. There were 27 patients in the less-mobile group (mean preoperative ROM 3.0°) and 33 in the more-mobile group (mean ROM 11.7°). The 2 groups were similar in demographics, including age, sex, diabetes, and cigarette smoking. Both groups had significant improvements in clinical outcomes, with no significant differences between the 2 groups. However, the radiological evaluations demonstrated remarkable differences. The less-mobile group had a greater increase in ΔROM than the more-mobile group (ΔROM 5.5° vs 0.1°, p = 0.001), though the less-mobile group still had less segmental mobility (ROM 8.5° vs 11.7°, p = 0.04). The rates of complications were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative segmental mobility did not alter the clinical outcomes of CDA. The preoperatively less-mobile (ROM ≤ 5°) discs had similar clinical improvements and greater increase of segmental mobility (ΔROM), but remained less mobile, than the preoperatively more-mobile (ROM > 5°) discs at 2 years postoperatively.