Interspinous spacers were developed to treat local deformities such as degenerative spondylolisthesis. To treat patients with chronic instability, posterior pedicle fixation and rod-based dynamic stabilization systems were developed as alternatives to fusion surgeries. Dynamic stabilization is the future of spinal surgery, and in the near future, we will be able to see the development of new devices and surgical techniques to stabilize the spine. It is important to follow the development of these technologies and to gain experience using them. In this paper, we review the literature and discuss the dynamic systems, both past and present, used in the market to treat lumbar degeneration.

Study DesignA retrospective study investigating decrease in the nucleus pulposus signal intensity or disc height on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and disc degeneration.PurposeAlthough a degenerated disc cannot self-regenerate, distraction or stabilization may provide suitable conditions for rehydration and possible regeneration. This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes and disc regeneration via MRI in a series of patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) who underwent lumbar stabilization with a dynamic stabilization system (DSS).Overview of LiteratureA dynamic system provides rehydration during early DDD.MethodsFifty-nine patients (mean age, 46.5 years) who undedwent stabilization with DSS for segmental instability (painful black disc) between 2004 and 2014 were retrospectively evaluated. All patients underwent MRI preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively. Intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration grades at the implanted segment were categorized using the Pfirrmann classification system. Patients were followed for a mean of 6.4 years, and clinical outcomes were based on visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores.ResultsSignificant improvements in back pain VAS and ODI scores from before surgery (7 and 68%, respectively) were reported at 6 (2.85 and 27.4%, respectively) and 12 months postoperatively (1.8 and 16.3%, respectively). Postoperative IVD changes were observed in 28 patients. Improvement was observed in 20 patients (34%), whereas progressive degeneration was observed in eight patients (13.5%). Thirty-one patients (52.5%) exhibited neither improvement nor progression. Single Pfirrmann grade improvements were observed in 29% of the patients and two-grade improvements were observed in 5%.ConclusionsOur observations support the theory that physiological movement and a balanced load distribution are necessary for disc regeneration. We conclude that DSS may decelerate the degeneration process and appears to facilitate regeneration.

Fusion and rigid instrumentation have been currently the mainstay for the surgical treatment of degenerative diseases of the spine over the last 4 decades. In all over the world the common experience was formed about fusion surgery. Satisfactory results of lumbar spinal fusion appeared completely incompatible and unfavorable within years. Rigid spinal implants along with fusion cause increased stresses of the adjacent segments and have some important disadvantages such as donor site morbidity including pain, wound problems, infections because of longer operating time, pseudarthrosis, and fatigue failure of implants. Alternative spinal implants were developed with time on unsatisfactory outcomes of rigid internal fixation along with fusion. Motion preservation devices which include both anterior and posterior dynamic stabilization are designed and used especially in the last two decades. This paper evaluates the dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and talks about chronologically some novel dynamic stabilization devices and thier efficacies.

Background: A lumbar pedicular dynamic stabilization system (LPDSS) is an alternative to fusion for treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD). In this study, clinical and radiological results of one LPDSS (Saphinaz, Medikon AS, Turkey) were compared with results of rigid fixation after two-year follow-up.Methods: All patients had anteroposterior and lateral standing x-rays of the lumbar spine preoperatively and at 3 months, 12 months and 24 months after surgery. Lordosis of the lumbar spine, segmental lordosis and ratio of the height of the intervertebral disc spaces (IVS) measured preoperatively and at 3 months, 12 months and 24 months after surgery.All patients underwent MRI and/or CT preoperatively, 3months, 12 months and 24 months postoperatively. The ratio of intervertebral disc space to vertebral body height (IVS) and segmental and lumbar lordosis were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively. Pain scores were evaluatedviaVisual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) preoperatively and postoperatively.Results: In both groups, the VAS and ODI scores decreased significantly from preoperatively to postoperatively. There was no difference in the scores between groups except that a lower VAS and ODI scores were observed after 3 months in the LPDSS group. In both groups, the IVS ratio remained unchanged between preoperative and postoperative conditions. The lumbar and segmental lordotic angles decreased insignificantly to preoperative levels in the months following surgery.Conclusions: Patients with LPDSS had equivalent relief of pain and maintenance of sagittal balance to patients with standard rigid screw-rod fixation. LPDSS appears to be a good alternative to rigid fixation.

Currently, rigid fixation systems are the gold standard for degenerative disk disease treatment. Dynamic fixation systems have been proposed as alternatives for the treatment of a variety of spinal disorders. These systems address the main drawbacks of traditional rigid fixation systems, such as adjacent segment degeneration and instrumentation failure. Pedicle-screw-based dynamic stabilization (PDS) is one type of these alternative systems. The aim of this study was to simulate the biomechanical effect of a novel posterior dynamic stabilization system, which is comprised of dynamic (hinged) screws interconnected with a coiled, spring-based dynamic rod (DSDR), and compare it to semirigid (DSRR and RSRR) and rigid stabilization (RSRR) systems. A validated finite element (FE) model of L1-S1 was used to quantify the biomechanical parameters of the spine, such as range of motion, intradiskal pressure, stresses and facet loads after single-level instrumentation with different posterior stabilization systems. The results obtained from in vitro experimental intact and instrumented spines were used to validate the FE model, and the validated model was then used to compare the biomechanical effects of different fixation and stabilization constructs with intact under a hybrid loading protocol. The segmental motion at L4–L5 increased by 9.5% and 16.3% in flexion and left rotation, respectively, in DSDR with respect to the intact spine, whereas it was reduced by 6.4% and 10.9% in extension and left-bending loads, respectively. After instrumentation-induced intradiskal pressure at adjacent segments, L3-L4 and L5-S1 became less than the intact in dynamic rod constructs (DSDR and RSDR) except in the RSDR model in extension where the motion was higher than intact by 9.7% at L3-L4 and 11.3% at L5-S1. The facet loads were insignificant, not exceeding 12N in any of the instrumented cases in flexion. In extension, the facet load in DSDR case was similar to that in intact spine. The dynamic rod constructions (DSDR and RSDR) led to a lesser peak stress at screws compared with rigid rod constructions (DSRR and RSRR) in all loading cases. A dynamic construct consisting of a dynamic rod and a dynamic screw did protect the adjacent level from excessive motion.