OBJECTIVE: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a safe and effective therapy for movement disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease (PD), essential tremor (ET), and dystonia. There is considerable interest in developing “closed-loop” DBS devices capable of modulating stimulation in response to sensor feedback. In this paper, the authors review related literature and present selected approaches to signal sources and approaches to feedback being considered for deployment in closed-loop systems. METHODS: A literature search using the keywords “closed-loop DBS” and “adaptive DBS” was performed in the PubMed database. The search was conducted for all articles published up until March 2018. An in-depth review was not performed for publications not written in the English language, nonhuman studies, or topics other than Parkinson’s disease or essential tremor, specifically epilepsy and psychiatric conditions. RESULTS: The search returned 256 articles. A total of 71 articles were primary studies in humans, of which 50 focused on treatment of movement disorders. These articles were reviewed with the aim of providing an overview of the features of closed-loop systems, with particular attention paid to signal sources and biomarkers, general approaches to feedback control, and clinical data when available. CONCLUSIONS: Closed-loop DBS seeks to employ biomarkers, derived from sensors such as electromyography, electrocorticography, and local field potentials, to provide real-time, patient-responsive therapy for movement disorders. Most studies appear to focus on the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Several approaches hold promise, but additional studies are required to determine which approaches are feasible, efficacious, and efficient.

OBJECTIVE: Pedicle screw–based dynamic stabilization has been an alternative to conventional lumbar fusion for the surgical management of low-grade spondylolisthesis. However, the true effect of dynamic stabilization on adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) remains undetermined. Authors of this study aimed to investigate the incidence of ASD and to compare the clinical outcomes of dynamic stabilization and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).METHODS: The records of consecutive patients with Meyerding grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis who had undergone surgical management at L4–5 in the period from 2007 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgery performed: Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) group and MI-TLIF group. Pre- and postoperative radiological evaluations, including radiography, CT, and MRI studies, were compared. Adjacent discs were evaluated using 4 radiological parameters: instability (antero- or retrolisthesis), disc degeneration (Pfirrmann classification), endplate degeneration (Modic classification), and range of motion (ROM). Clinical outcomes, measured with the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, were also compared.RESULTS: A total of 79 patients with L4–5 degenerative spondylolisthesis were included in the analysis. During a mean follow-up of 35.2 months (range 24–89 months), there were 56 patients in the DDS group and 23 in the MI-TLIF group. Prior to surgery, both groups were very similar in demographic, radiological, and clinical data. Postoperation, both groups had similarly significant improvement in clinical outcomes (VAS, ODI, and JOA scores) at each time point of evaluation. There was a lower chance of disc degeneration (Pfirrmann classification) of the adjacent discs in the DDS group than in the MI-TLIF group (17% vs 37%, p = 0.01). However, the DDS and MI-TLIF groups had similar rates of instability (15.2% vs 17.4%, respectively, p = 0.92) and endplate degeneration (1.8% vs 6.5%, p = 0.30) at the cranial (L3–4) and caudal (L5–S1) adjacent levels after surgery. The mean ROM in the cranial and caudal levels was also similar in the two groups. None of the patients required secondary surgery for any ASD (defined by radiological criteria).CONCLUSIONS: The clinical improvements after DDS were similar to those following MI-TLIF for L4–5 Meyerding grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis at 3 years postoperation. According to radiological evaluations, there was a lower chance of disc degeneration in the adjacent levels of the patients who had undergone DDS. However, other radiological signs of ASD, including instability, endplate degeneration, and ROM, were similar between the two groups. Although none of the patients in the present series required secondary surgery, a longer follow-up and a larger number of patients would be necessary to corroborate the protective effect of DDS against ASD.

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.

Introduction. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of Dynesys dynamic stabilization (DDS) on clinical and radiographic outcomes, including spinal pelvic alignment.Method. Consecutive patients who underwent 1- or 2-level DDS for lumbar spondylosis, mild degenerative spondylolisthesis, or degenerative disc disease were included. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by Visual Analogue Scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and the Japanese Orthopedic Association scores. Radiographic outcomes were assessed by radiographs and computed tomography. Pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (LL) were also compared.Results. In 206 patients with an average follow-up of 51.1 ± 20.8 months, there were 87 screws (8.2%) in 42 patients (20.4%) that were loose. All clinical outcomes improved at each time point after operation. Patients with loosened screws were 45 years older. Furthermore, there was a higher risk of screw loosening in DDS involving S1, and these patients were more likely to have loosened screws if the LL failed to increase after the operation.Conclusions. The DDS screw loosening rate was overall 8.2% per screw and 20.4% per patient at more than 4 years of follow-up. Older patients, S1 involvement, and those patients who failed to gain LL postoperatively were at higher risk of screw loosening.