Home | About JCVJS | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact us |   Login 
Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine
Search Articles   
Advanced search   
Year : 2023  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 59-64

Arthrodesis versus dynamic neutralization: A short/mid- and long-term retrospective evaluation in degenerative disk disease treatment

1 Clinic of Adult and Paediatric Orthopaedics, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Ospedali Riuniti Di Ancona, Ancona, Italy
2 Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Ancona, Italy

Correspondence Address:
Silvia Amico
Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Via Tronto 10/a, Torrette Di Ancona 60020
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jcvjs.jcvjs_159_22

Rights and Permissions

Study Design: This was a retrospective comparative study. Objectives: The aim of this study was to perform a clinical and radiological retrospective evaluation of the most used techniques for the lumbar degenerative disk disease (DDD) treatment: arthrodesis versus dynamic neutralization (DN)-Dynesys dynamic stabilization system. Methods: The study included 58 consecutive patients affected by lumbar DDD, 28 treated with rigid stabilization and 30 with DN at our department between 2003 and 2013. The clinical evaluation was performed through the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The radiographic evaluation was performed through standard and dynamic X-ray projections and magnetic resonance imaging. Results: Both techniques determined a clinical improvement in the postoperative period compared to the preoperative one. There were no significant differences between the postoperative VAS of the two techniques. The DN group postoperative ODI percentage showed a significant improvement (P = 0.026) compared to the arthrodesis group. During the follow-up, no clinically significant differences were highlighted between the two techniques. At a long term follow up period, radiographic results showed, in both groups, a L3–L4 disk mean height reduction and an increase of segmental and lumbar lordosis without significant differences between the two techniques. During an average of 96-month follow-up period, 5 (18%) patients developed an adjacent segment disease in the arthrodesis group and 6 (20%) patients developed this syndrome in the DN group. Conclusions: We are confident in recommending arthrodesis and DN as effective techniques for lumbar DDD treatment. Both techniques are potentially burdened, with similar frequency, by the development of long-term adjacent segment disease.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded13    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal