Background: Adult spinal deformities (ASD) present complex challenges in spine surgery. The diverse nature of these deformities requires a comprehensive understanding of their classification and treatment options. Traditional approaches, such as fusion and rigid stabilization are associated with complications, including screw loosening, breakage, proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), and pseudoarthrosis. Dynamic stabilization techniques have emerged as promising alternatives, to reduce these complications and preserve spinal motion. Objective: This study investigated the effectiveness of dynamic stabilization using the Dynesys system in the surgical treatment of adult degenerative spinal deformities, with a particular emphasis on their classification. Methods: ASDs were classified according to the Berjano–Lamartina (BL) and Silva–Lenke (SL) classifications. We analyzed the efficacy of the Dynesys system in enhancing sagittal balance, radiological parameters, and clinical outcomes in this context. Results: Dynamic stabilization of patients with ASDs using the Dynesys system significantly improved the visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores and decreased the complication rates. Patients with BL types 2, 3, and 4 experienced a significant improvement in sagittal balance followed by sagittal vertical axis measurements (p = 0.045, p = 0.015, and p < 0.0001, respectively). Conclusion: The SL and BL classifications, which were originally developed for rigid spinal stabilization, can be applied in dynamic stabilization. Furthermore, dynamic stabilization using the Dynesys system can be used as an alternative to rigid stabilization in SL levels 2 and 3, and BL types 1, 2, and 3, and in some patients with type 4 ASDs.

Background: Multisegmental lumbar degenerative disease (ms-LDD) is a common condition in older adults, often requiring surgical intervention. While rigid stabilization remains the gold standard, it is associated with complications such as adjacent segment disease (ASD), higher blood loss, and longer recovery times. The Dynesys dynamic stabilization system offers an alternative by preserving motion while stabilizing the spine. However, data comparing Dynesys with fusion in multisegmental cases are limited. Objective: This study evaluates the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Dynesys dynamic stabilization versus rigid stabilization in the treatment of ms-LDD. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 53 patients (mean age: 62.25 ± 15.37 years) who underwent either Dynesys dynamic stabilization (n = 27) or PLIF (n = 26) for ms-LDD involving at least seven motion segments. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), while radiological parameters such as lumbar lordosis (LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and spinopelvic parameters (pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt and, sacral slope) were analyzed. A two-stage surgical approach was employed in the Dynesys group to enhance osseointegration, particularly in elderly osteoporotic patients. Results: Both groups showed significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores postoperatively (p < 0.001), with no significant differences between them. However, the Dynesys group demonstrated superior sagittal alignment correction, with a significant increase in LL (p < 0.002) and a significant decrease in SVA (p < 0.0015), whereas changes in the rigid stabilization group were not statistically significant. Additionally, the Dynesys group had fewer complications, including a lower incidence of ASD (0 vs. 6 cases). The two-stage technique facilitated improved screw osseointegration and reduced surgical risks in osteoporotic patients. Conclusions: Dynesys dynamic stabilization is an effective alternative to rigid stabilization in ms-LDD, offering comparable pain relief and functional improvement while preserving motion and reducing ASD risk. The two-stage approach enhances long-term stability, making it particularly suitable for elderly or osteoporotic patients. Further long-term studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Objective: In spine surgery, ensuring the safety of vital structures is crucial, and various instruments contribute to the surgeon’s confidence. This study aims to present outcomes from spinal cases operated on using the freehand technique and neuronavigation with an O-arm in our clinic. Additionally, we investigate the impact of surgical experience on outcomes by comparing early and late cases operated on with neuronavigation. Method: We conducted a retrospective analysis of spinal patients operated on with the freehand technique and neuronavigation in our clinic between 2019 and 2020, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Cases operated on with neuronavigation using the O-arm were categorized into early and late groups. Results: This study included 193 patients, with 110 undergoing the freehand technique and 83 operated on utilizing O-arm navigation. The first 40 cases with neuronavigation formed the early group, and the subsequent 43 cases comprised the late group. The mean clinical follow-up was 29.7 months. In the O-arm/navigation group, 796 (99%) of 805 pedicle screws were in an acceptable position, while the freehand group had 999 (89.5%) of 1117 pedicle screws without damage. This rate was 98% in the early neuronavigation group and 99.5% in the late neuronavigation group. Conclusions: The use of O-arm/navigation facilitates overcoming anatomical difficulties, leading to significant reductions in screw malposition and complication rates. Furthermore, increased experience correlates with decreased surgical failure rates.