The role of rigid vs. dynamic instrumentation for stabilization of the degenerative lumbosacral spine

Abstract

Purpose of the study: This is a prospective comparative randomised study to compare the immediately postoperative effects of a rigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative spine disease and stenosis on the standing sagittal lumbar spine alignment and to investigate if a dynamic spine system can replace the commonly used rigid systems in order to avoid the above mentioned disadvantages of rigid fixation.

Material & methods: 15 randomly selected patients received the rigid instrumentation SCS and an equal number of randomly selected patients the dynamic TWINFLEX device for spinal stenosis associated degenerative lumbar disease. The age of the patients, who received rigid and dynamic instrumentation was 65 +/- 9 years and 62 +/- 10 years respectively. All patients had standing spine radiographs preoperatively and three months postoperatively. The parameters that were measured and compared pre- to postoperatively were: lumbar lordosis (L1-S1), total lumbar lordosis (T12-S1), sacral tilt, distal lordosis (L4-S1), intervertebral angulation, vertebral inclination and disc index.

Results: The instrumented levels in the spines that received rigid and dynamic instrumentation were 3.5 +/- 0.53 and 3 +/- 0.7 respectively. The instrumented levels from L3 to L5 were 23, the lumbosacral junction was instrumented in 3 patients of group A and in 4 patients of group B. Lumbar lordosis did not significantly change postoperatively, while total lordosis was significantly (P=0.04) increased in the patients who received the rigid instrumentation, while it was significantly (P=0.012) decreased in the group B. Intervertebral angulation of the non-instrumented level L1-L2 was increased in the group A (P=0.01), while the dynamic instrumentation increased (P=0.02) the intervertebral inclination of the adjacent level L2-L3, immediately above the uppermost instrumented level. Distal lordosis and sacral tilt did not change in any patient in both groups. Both instrumentations did not change the lateral vertebral inclination of L1 to L5 vertebrae. Rigid instrumentation increased the lordotic inclination of L5 (P=0.03) and of S1 (P=0.03). Rigid instrumentation increased (P=0.04) the intervertebral angulation at the uppermost instrumented level L3-L4 The most significant change in vertebral angulation was achieved at the instrumented level L4-L5 by the dynamic (P=0.007) and rigid (0.05). The disc index at the level L2-L3 was increased by both instrumentation [dynamic P=0.007 and rigid (P=0.02)]. The index L3-L4 was increased following dynamic fixation (P=0.0007). The disc index L4-L5 was postoperatively increased by both types of instrumentation (rigid P=0.006, dynamic P=0.02). The disc index L5-S1 did not significantly change postoperatively by either system.

Conclusion: Both rigid and dynamic instrumentations restored lumbar lordosis, sacral tilt, distal lordosis and increased the foraminal diameter at the level L4-L5 resulting in an indirect decompression of the nerve roots at this level . Both rigid and dynamic instrumentations applied in the lumbosacral spine to treat degenerative disease secured L3 to S1 sagittal spine profile close to preoperative levels, that should theoretically guarantee a pain-free postoperative course. This study supports the belief that the dynamic system can be used with the same indications with the rigid in degenerative lumbar spine because it can offer equally good short-term results regarding sagittal spine alignment while simultaneously it has the previously mentioned advantages (avoidance stress shielding etc).