Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Unfallchirurgie · 2015
[A Comparison of Dorsal Decompression and Dorsal Decompression Combined with the Dynamic Stabilisation Device LimiFlex™].
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jansen T, Bornemann R, Otten L, Sander K, Wirtz D, Pflugmacher R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal canal stenosis is commonly treated by dorsal decompression. However, resection of posterior elements increases the biomechanical instability and may lead to further complications. In order to prevent this, fusion of the involved segments is often performed. But further complications may be associated with this, for example, highly reduced flexibility. In order to overcome fusion-related problems, dynamic stabilisation devices, like the new LimiFlex™ Paraspinous Tension Band (PSB), have been developed. This prospective study compares dorsal decompression without stabilisation and dorsal decompression with stabilisation using the PSB in patients with lumbar canal stenosis.
METHODS: Sixty-three patients with stenosis involving one or two lumbar vertebral levels were treated with dorsal decompression. Forty received the PSB following decompression surgery. Back, hip and leg pain as well as patient's degree of disability were assessed preoperatively and at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively for all patients. Evaluations were conducted using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). Adverse events during the study period were evaluated.
RESULTS: Patients who received the PSB experienced a better pain relief and improvement in disability compared to patients who received treatment through decompression only. A significant difference of VAS and ODI development was found between both groups when treating two vertebral levels. Furthermore, the total number of adverse events was lower in the PSB group compared to the decompression group.
CONCLUSION: Dynamic stabilisation using the PSB delivers better results in terms of VAS and ODI values when compared to only dorsal decompression. In addition, it is also associated with a lower number of complications. The PSB is most favourable when 2 levels are treated.
METHODS: Sixty-three patients with stenosis involving one or two lumbar vertebral levels were treated with dorsal decompression. Forty received the PSB following decompression surgery. Back, hip and leg pain as well as patient's degree of disability were assessed preoperatively and at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively for all patients. Evaluations were conducted using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). Adverse events during the study period were evaluated.
RESULTS: Patients who received the PSB experienced a better pain relief and improvement in disability compared to patients who received treatment through decompression only. A significant difference of VAS and ODI development was found between both groups when treating two vertebral levels. Furthermore, the total number of adverse events was lower in the PSB group compared to the decompression group.
CONCLUSION: Dynamic stabilisation using the PSB delivers better results in terms of VAS and ODI values when compared to only dorsal decompression. In addition, it is also associated with a lower number of complications. The PSB is most favourable when 2 levels are treated.