Dynesys动态稳定系统在腰椎退行性疾病中的应用及其与传统手术治疗方法的早期临床疗效比较
|
摘要
第一部分减压结合Dynesys动态稳定系统治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症早期疗效观察
目的探讨减压结合Dynesys动态稳定系统治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症的疗效和安全性。方法2007年1月至2008年6月,对23例退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者在后路减压后行Dynesys内固定术。男10例,女13例：年龄56.38±11.63岁(38-68岁)。结果随访时间26.23±7.34个月(17～34个月),疼痛VAS评分：术前8.16±0.98(6-10),术后2.24±1.32(0-5) (P=0.001)；Oswestry功能障碍指数：术前72.42±17.01分(45～89分)：术后22.43±14.67(0-43分)(P=0.002)。无椎弓根螺钉松动、断裂。临床疗效按Macnab评定标准评价：优17例,良4例,可2例,症状改善优良率达91.3%。结论减压结合Dynesys治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症取得良好的早期临床效果,防止固定及邻近节段的退变,是治疗腰椎退行性疾病的一种有效的非融合性、动态稳定方法。
第二部分减压后Dynesys动态稳定和植骨融合内固定治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症早期临床疗效比较
目的用减压结合Dynesys动态稳定系统和减压结合植骨融合、内固定两种不同方法治疗退行性腰椎腰椎管狭窄症,比较其早期临床疗效差异。方法2007年1月～2009年1月两种不同方法治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症87例,A组：减压结合Dynesys动态稳定系统治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症；B组：减压结合植骨融合、椎弓根钉棒系统内固定。A组28例,B组59例,分别观察2组病例的手术时间、术中出血量、疼痛VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数、手术效果优良率。结果两组所有患者均获得随访,随访13-37个月,平均随访26个月,以最后1次随访资料作为最终评价依据。两组手术时间、术中出血量B组高于A组(P<0.05), VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数、手术效果优良率均无显著性差异(P>0.05),两组术后疼痛VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数均较术前明显改善,差异有显著性(P<0.05)。结论Dynesys动态稳定系统治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症,相比传统的植骨融合、内固定具有创伤小、出血少、手术时间短,早期临床效果相当,提供足够的脊柱稳定性,防止手术及相邻节段的退变。
第三部分髓核摘除结合Dynesys动态稳定和显微镜下髓核摘除治疗腰椎间盘突出症早期临床疗效比较
目的用髓核摘除结合Dynesys动态稳定和单纯髓核摘除两种不同方法治疗腰椎间盘突出症,比较其早期临床疗效差异。方法2007年1月～2009年1月两种不同方法治疗腰椎间盘突出症,A组：髓核摘除结合Dynesys动态稳定,26例；B组：显微镜下髓核摘除,556例。分别观察2组病例的手术时间、术中出血量、疼痛VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数、手术效果优良率。结果A组26例全部获得随访,B组378例获得随访。随访13-37个月,平均随访28个月,以最后1次随访资料作为最终评价依据。两组手术时间、术中出血量A组高于B组(P<0.05);VAS评分Oswestry功能障碍指数、手术效果优良率均无显著性差异(P>0.05)；两组术后疼痛VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数均较术前明显改善,差异有显著性(P<0.05)。A组无椎间盘突出复发,无腰椎不稳；B组有2例椎间盘突出复发,有2例出现腰椎不稳。结论髓核摘除结合Dynesys动态稳定系统与显微镜下单纯髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症,都能取得良好的短期临床疗效；单纯髓核摘除术手术时间短、出血少、创伤小、费用低,而髓核摘除结合Dynesys动态稳定防止突出及邻近节段的退变、复发、不稳效果更佳。
PartⅠ
The Dynamic Stabilization System in Addition to Decomprssion for the Degenrative Lumar Spinal Stenosis.
Objective:To investigate the efficacy and safety of the dynamic stabilization system in addition to decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
Methods From January 2007 to June 2008,23 consecutive patients (10 males and 13 females) with lumbar spinal stenosis underwent decompression and Dynesys dynamic stabilization. The age was 56.38±11.63 years (range 38-68 years). Results The follow-up period was 26.23±7.34 months (range 17-34 months). The VAS decreased from preoperative score of 8.16±0.98 (6-10) to postoperative score of 2.24±1.32 (0 to 5) (P =0.001), and the patients'Oswestry disability index was improved from preoperative score of 72.42±17.01 (45 to 89) to postoperative score of 22.43±14.67 (0to48) (P= 0.002). No patient had screw loosensing and screw breakage. According to clinical outcome judgement criterion of Macnab, excellent in 17cases, good 4 cases, fair 2 cases, the excellent and good rate was 91.3%. Conclusions It is concluded that early outcome were excellent when we used the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system in addition to decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. It prevent the degeneration of the instrumented level and the adjacent segments. It is a nofusion and semirigid fixation for the lumbar degenarative diseases.
Part II
TO compare the early clinical results of the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with two different methods.
Objective To compare the early clinical results of the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with the dynamic stabilization system in addition to decompression and fusion, fixation in addition to decompression. Methods We treated 87 patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, from January 2007 to January 2009. Patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis were randomly assigned to be treated with dynamic stabilization system in addition to decompression (group A) and fusion, fixation in addition to decompression (group B). The group A consisted of twenty-eight patients, and the group B consisted of fifty-nine patients. The factors considered included the operative time, amount of intraoperative bleeding,pre and post operative assessment based on pain visual analog scales(VAS) and the Oswestry disability index(ODI), the total excellent and good ratio of outcome. Results All the patients were followed up for a mean of 26 months(range,13～37 months). The final valuation was based on the documents of the last fellow up. The two groups had significant differences on operative time, amount of intraoperative bleeding, the group B is higher than the group A(P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the pain visual analog scales(VAS) and the Oswestry disability index(ODI), the total excellent and good ratio of outcome(P>0.05). In the two group, VAS and the Oswestry disability index(ODI), improved from preoperative to postoperative(P<0.05). Conclusion Compared to the segment fusion and fixation, transpedicular dynamic stabilization for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, have the merit of minimally invasive, shorter surgical time, little hemorrhage.But their early clinical effect were comparable, maintain the stabilization of the spine, prevent the degeneration of the instrumented segments and adjacent segments.
Part III
To compare the clinical results of the treatment of lumbar disc prolapse with the transpedicular dynamic stabilization in addition to nucleotomy and nucleotomy alone.
Objective To compare the clinical results of the treatment of lumbar disc prolapse with the transpedicular dynamic stabilization in addition to nucleotomy and nucleotomy alone. Methods We treated lumbar disc prolapse with two different methods, from January 2007 to January 2009. Group A:the transpedicular dynamic stabilization in addition to nucleotomy. Group B:microsurgical nucleotomy alone. The group A consisted of twenty-six patients, all of them were followed up.The group B consisted of five hundreds and fifty-six patients, only 378 patients were followed up. The factors considered included the operative time, amount of intraoperative bleeding,pre and post operative assessment based on pain visual analog scales(VAS) and the Oswestry disability index(ODI), the total excellent and good ratio of outcome. Results All the patients were followed up for a mean of 28 months(range,13～37 months). The final valuation was based on the documents of the last fellow up. The two groups had significant differences on operative time, amount of intraoperative bleeding, the group A is higher than the group B(P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the pain visual analog scales(VAS) and the Oswestry disability index(ODI), the total excellent and good ratio of outcome(P>0.05). In the two group, VAS and the Oswestry disability index(ODI) improved from preoperative to postoperative(P<0.05). The were no reprolapse and instability in group A. Two reprolapse and two instability of spine were seen in group B. Conclusion Both the clinical effects of the two methods are satisfactory. Microsurgical nucleotomy alone have the merit of minimally invasive, shorter surgical time, little hemorrhage.However, the transpedicular dynamic stabilization in addition to nucleotomy maintain the stabilization of the spine, prevent the degeneration, reprolapse and instability of the instrumented and adjacent segments.
目的探讨减压结合Dynesys动态稳定系统治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症的疗效和安全性。方法2007年1月至2008年6月,对23例退行性腰椎管狭窄症患者在后路减压后行Dynesys内固定术。男10例,女13例：年龄56.38±11.63岁(38-68岁)。结果随访时间26.23±7.34个月(17～34个月),疼痛VAS评分：术前8.16±0.98(6-10),术后2.24±1.32(0-5) (P=0.001)；Oswestry功能障碍指数：术前72.42±17.01分(45～89分)：术后22.43±14.67(0-43分)(P=0.002)。无椎弓根螺钉松动、断裂。临床疗效按Macnab评定标准评价：优17例,良4例,可2例,症状改善优良率达91.3%。结论减压结合Dynesys治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症取得良好的早期临床效果,防止固定及邻近节段的退变,是治疗腰椎退行性疾病的一种有效的非融合性、动态稳定方法。
第二部分减压后Dynesys动态稳定和植骨融合内固定治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症早期临床疗效比较
目的用减压结合Dynesys动态稳定系统和减压结合植骨融合、内固定两种不同方法治疗退行性腰椎腰椎管狭窄症,比较其早期临床疗效差异。方法2007年1月～2009年1月两种不同方法治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症87例,A组：减压结合Dynesys动态稳定系统治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症；B组：减压结合植骨融合、椎弓根钉棒系统内固定。A组28例,B组59例,分别观察2组病例的手术时间、术中出血量、疼痛VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数、手术效果优良率。结果两组所有患者均获得随访,随访13-37个月,平均随访26个月,以最后1次随访资料作为最终评价依据。两组手术时间、术中出血量B组高于A组(P<0.05), VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数、手术效果优良率均无显著性差异(P>0.05),两组术后疼痛VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数均较术前明显改善,差异有显著性(P<0.05)。结论Dynesys动态稳定系统治疗退行性腰椎管狭窄症,相比传统的植骨融合、内固定具有创伤小、出血少、手术时间短,早期临床效果相当,提供足够的脊柱稳定性,防止手术及相邻节段的退变。
第三部分髓核摘除结合Dynesys动态稳定和显微镜下髓核摘除治疗腰椎间盘突出症早期临床疗效比较
目的用髓核摘除结合Dynesys动态稳定和单纯髓核摘除两种不同方法治疗腰椎间盘突出症,比较其早期临床疗效差异。方法2007年1月～2009年1月两种不同方法治疗腰椎间盘突出症,A组：髓核摘除结合Dynesys动态稳定,26例；B组：显微镜下髓核摘除,556例。分别观察2组病例的手术时间、术中出血量、疼痛VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数、手术效果优良率。结果A组26例全部获得随访,B组378例获得随访。随访13-37个月,平均随访28个月,以最后1次随访资料作为最终评价依据。两组手术时间、术中出血量A组高于B组(P<0.05);VAS评分Oswestry功能障碍指数、手术效果优良率均无显著性差异(P>0.05)；两组术后疼痛VAS评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数均较术前明显改善,差异有显著性(P<0.05)。A组无椎间盘突出复发,无腰椎不稳；B组有2例椎间盘突出复发,有2例出现腰椎不稳。结论髓核摘除结合Dynesys动态稳定系统与显微镜下单纯髓核摘除术治疗腰椎间盘突出症,都能取得良好的短期临床疗效；单纯髓核摘除术手术时间短、出血少、创伤小、费用低,而髓核摘除结合Dynesys动态稳定防止突出及邻近节段的退变、复发、不稳效果更佳。
PartⅠ
The Dynamic Stabilization System in Addition to Decomprssion for the Degenrative Lumar Spinal Stenosis.
Objective:To investigate the efficacy and safety of the dynamic stabilization system in addition to decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.
Methods From January 2007 to June 2008,23 consecutive patients (10 males and 13 females) with lumbar spinal stenosis underwent decompression and Dynesys dynamic stabilization. The age was 56.38±11.63 years (range 38-68 years). Results The follow-up period was 26.23±7.34 months (range 17-34 months). The VAS decreased from preoperative score of 8.16±0.98 (6-10) to postoperative score of 2.24±1.32 (0 to 5) (P =0.001), and the patients'Oswestry disability index was improved from preoperative score of 72.42±17.01 (45 to 89) to postoperative score of 22.43±14.67 (0to48) (P= 0.002). No patient had screw loosensing and screw breakage. According to clinical outcome judgement criterion of Macnab, excellent in 17cases, good 4 cases, fair 2 cases, the excellent and good rate was 91.3%. Conclusions It is concluded that early outcome were excellent when we used the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system in addition to decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. It prevent the degeneration of the instrumented level and the adjacent segments. It is a nofusion and semirigid fixation for the lumbar degenarative diseases.
Part II
TO compare the early clinical results of the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with two different methods.
Objective To compare the early clinical results of the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with the dynamic stabilization system in addition to decompression and fusion, fixation in addition to decompression. Methods We treated 87 patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, from January 2007 to January 2009. Patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis were randomly assigned to be treated with dynamic stabilization system in addition to decompression (group A) and fusion, fixation in addition to decompression (group B). The group A consisted of twenty-eight patients, and the group B consisted of fifty-nine patients. The factors considered included the operative time, amount of intraoperative bleeding,pre and post operative assessment based on pain visual analog scales(VAS) and the Oswestry disability index(ODI), the total excellent and good ratio of outcome. Results All the patients were followed up for a mean of 26 months(range,13～37 months). The final valuation was based on the documents of the last fellow up. The two groups had significant differences on operative time, amount of intraoperative bleeding, the group B is higher than the group A(P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the pain visual analog scales(VAS) and the Oswestry disability index(ODI), the total excellent and good ratio of outcome(P>0.05). In the two group, VAS and the Oswestry disability index(ODI), improved from preoperative to postoperative(P<0.05). Conclusion Compared to the segment fusion and fixation, transpedicular dynamic stabilization for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, have the merit of minimally invasive, shorter surgical time, little hemorrhage.But their early clinical effect were comparable, maintain the stabilization of the spine, prevent the degeneration of the instrumented segments and adjacent segments.
Part III
To compare the clinical results of the treatment of lumbar disc prolapse with the transpedicular dynamic stabilization in addition to nucleotomy and nucleotomy alone.
Objective To compare the clinical results of the treatment of lumbar disc prolapse with the transpedicular dynamic stabilization in addition to nucleotomy and nucleotomy alone. Methods We treated lumbar disc prolapse with two different methods, from January 2007 to January 2009. Group A:the transpedicular dynamic stabilization in addition to nucleotomy. Group B:microsurgical nucleotomy alone. The group A consisted of twenty-six patients, all of them were followed up.The group B consisted of five hundreds and fifty-six patients, only 378 patients were followed up. The factors considered included the operative time, amount of intraoperative bleeding,pre and post operative assessment based on pain visual analog scales(VAS) and the Oswestry disability index(ODI), the total excellent and good ratio of outcome. Results All the patients were followed up for a mean of 28 months(range,13～37 months). The final valuation was based on the documents of the last fellow up. The two groups had significant differences on operative time, amount of intraoperative bleeding, the group A is higher than the group B(P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the pain visual analog scales(VAS) and the Oswestry disability index(ODI), the total excellent and good ratio of outcome(P>0.05). In the two group, VAS and the Oswestry disability index(ODI) improved from preoperative to postoperative(P<0.05). The were no reprolapse and instability in group A. Two reprolapse and two instability of spine were seen in group B. Conclusion Both the clinical effects of the two methods are satisfactory. Microsurgical nucleotomy alone have the merit of minimally invasive, shorter surgical time, little hemorrhage.However, the transpedicular dynamic stabilization in addition to nucleotomy maintain the stabilization of the spine, prevent the degeneration, reprolapse and instability of the instrumented and adjacent segments.
引文
[1]Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Farfan H. Instability of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop,1982,165: 110-123
[2]Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion:a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop,1999, 28:336-40.
[3]Takeshima T, Kambara K, Miyata S, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of disc excision for lumbar disc herniatiori with and without postero-lateral fusion. Spine,2000,25:450-6.
[4]Frei H, Oxland TR, Rathonyi GC, et al. The effect of nucleotomy on lumbar spine mechanics in compression and shear loading. Spine,2001;26:2080-9.
[5]Maroon JC. Current concepts in minimally invasive discectomy. Neurosurgery,2002, 51(Suppl2):137-45.
[6]Yorimitsu E, Chiba K, Toyama Y, et al. Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation:a follow-up of more than 10 years.Spine,2001,26:652-7.
[7]Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA,1992,268(5):907-911.
[8]Agazzi S, Reverdin A,May D. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages:an independent review of 71 cases. J Neurosurg,1999,91(suppl 2):186-192.
[9]Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, et al. Chronic low back pain and fusion:a comparison of three surgical techniques:a prospective multicenter randomised study fromthe Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine,2002,27(3):1131-1141.
[10]Andersen T, Christensen FB, Hansen ES, et al. Pain 5 years after instrumented and non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J,2003,12(7):393-399.
[11]France JC, Yaszemski MJ, Lauerman WC, et al. A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion:outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation.
Spine,1999,24(6):553-560.
[12]Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK. Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization. Eur Spine J,2002,11(suppl 2):198-205.
[13]Boos N, Webb JK. Pedicle screw fixation in spinal disorders:a European view. Eur SpineJ,1997,6(l):2-18.
[14]Freudiger S, Dubois G, Lorrrain M.Dynamic neutralisation of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg,1999,116:127-132.
[15]Schwarzenbach O,Berlemann U, Stoll T,et al.Posterior Dynamic Stabilisation Systems: DYNESYS. Orthop Clin N Am,2005,36:363-372.
[16]Dubois G, de Germay B, Schaerer NS, et al. Dynamic neutralization:a new concept for restabilization of the Spine. In:Spzalski M, Gunzburg R, Pope MH, eds. Lumbar Segmental Instability. Philadelphia, PA:Lipincott, Williams and Wilkins,1999:233-40.
[17]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine:A multi-center study of a novel non fusion system. Eur Spine J,2002, 11(2):170-178.
[18]Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments. J Spine Disord Tech,2003,16(4):418-423.
[19]Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, et al. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system:An in vitro study. Eur Spine J,2006,15(6):913-922.
[20]Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M,et al.The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decomprssion.Eur Spine J,2008,17:1057-1065.
[21]Cakir B, Carazzo C, Schmidt R,et al. Adjacent segment mobility after rigid and semigid instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine,2009,34:1287-1291.
[22]James Beastall, Efthimios Karadimas, Manal Siddiqui, et al.The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system-A preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings.Spine,2007,32:685-690.
[23]Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B.Minimum four-years follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine,2008,33:636-642.
[24]Grob D, Benini A, Junge A,et al. Clinical experience with the dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine:surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine,2005,30:324-331.
[25]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF,et al.The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse:nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone.Spine,2005,30:E109-E114.
[26]Dubois G, de Germay B, Prere J, et al.Dynamic neutralisation:treatment of mobile vertebral instability. Amsterdam, The Netherlands,2002,23:345-354.
[27]Fischgrund JS,MackayM, Herkowitz HN, et al. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis:a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine,1997, 22:2807-12.
[28]Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA,1992,268:907-11.
[29]Agazzi S, Reverdin A,May D. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages:an independent review of 71 cases. J Neurosurg,1999,91(suppl 2):186-92.
[1]Maroon JC. Current concepts in minimally invasive discectomy. Neurosurgery,2002, 51(3):S137-S145.
[2]Yorimitsu E, Chiba K, Toyama Y, et al. Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation:a follow-up study of more than 10 years. Spine,2001, 26(4):652-657.
[3]Kotilainen E, Valtonen S. Clinical instability of the lumbar spine after microdiscectomy. Acta Neurochir(Wien),1993,125(3):120-126.
[4]Rahm M, Hall B. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation:a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord,1996,9(2):392-400.
[5]Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA,1992,268(5):907-911.
[6]Agazzi S, Reverdin A,May D. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages:an independent review of 71 cases. J Neurosurg,1999,91(suppl 2):186-192.
[7]Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, et al. Chronic low back pain and fusion:a comparison of three surgical techniques:a prospective multicenter randomised study fromthe Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine,2002,27(3):1131-1141.
[8]Andersen T, Christensen FB, Hansen ES, et al. Pain 5 years after instrumented and non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J,2003,12(7):393-399.
[9]France JC, Yaszemski MJ, Lauerman WC, et al. A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion:outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine,1999,24(6):553-560.
[10]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine:A multi-center study of a novel non fusion system. Eur Spine J,2002, 11(2):170-178.
[11]Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments. J Spine Disord Tech,2003,16(4):418-423.
[12]Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, et al. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system:An in vitro study. Eur Spine J,2006,15(6):913-922.
[13]Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M, et al. The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression. Eur Spine J,2008,17(8):1057-1065.
[14]Beastall J, Karadimas E, Siddiqui M, et al.The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system:a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance.Spine,2007, 32(6):685-690.
[15]Ghiselli G, Wang J, Bhatia N, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2004,86-A:1497-1503.
[16]Kumar M, Jacquot F, Hall H. Long term follow up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J,2001,10(4):309-313.
[17]Eck J, Humphreys S, Hodges S. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion:A review of clinical biomechanical and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop,1999,28(3):336-340.
[18]Goto K, TajimaN,Ghosa E, et al. Effects of lumbar spinal fusion on the other intervertebral levels (three-dimensional finite element analysis). J Orthop Sci,2003, 8(5):577-384.
[19]Vaga S, Brayda-Bruno M, Perona F, et al. Molecular MR imaging for the evaluation of the effect of dynamic stabilization on lumbar intervertebral discs. Eur Spine J,2009, 18(suppl 1):s40-s48.
[20]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, et al. The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse:nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone.Spine,2005,30(5):E109-E114.
[21]Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B. Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine, 2006,31(4):442-449.
[22]Grob D, Benini A, Junge A,et al. Clinical experience with the dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine:surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years.Spine,2005,30(3):324-331.
[23]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, et al. Application of a dynamic pedicle screw system (DYNESYS) for lumbar segmental degenerations comparison of clinical and radiological results for different indications Z Orthop,2004,142(2):166-173.
[24]Freudiger S,Dubois QLorrain M.Dynamic neutralisation of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg,1999,19(3):127-132.
[25]Bothmann M, Kast E, Boldt GJ,et al. Dynesys fixation for lumbar spine degeneration. Neurosurg Rev,2008,31(2):189-196.
[1]Fairbank JCT, Couper J, et al. The oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy,1980,8:271.
[2]Chapman CR, Casey KL, Dubner R, et al. Pain measurement:an overview. Pain,1985, 22:1-31.
[3]Macnab L. Negative disc exploration. An analysis of the causes of nerve-root involvement in sixty-eight patients. J Bone Joint Surg(Am),1971,53:891-903.
[4]Christensen FB. Lumbar spinal fusion:outcome in relation to surgicalmethods, choice of implant and postoperative rehabilitation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl,2004, 74(313):1-43.
[5]Fritzell P, Hagg O, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group.Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain:comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Eur Spine J,2003,26(5 Suppl):S545-8.
[6]Rompe JD, Eysel P, Zollner J, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long-term results after under-cutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion. Neurosurg Rev,1999,22(2-3):102-106.
[7]Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, et al. Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine,1987,12(2):97-104.
[8]Aota Y, Kumano K, Hirabayashi S. Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord,1995,8(6):464-73.
[9]Rahm MD, Hall BB. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation:a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord,1996,9(6):392-400.
[10]Schulitz KP, Wiesner L, Wittenberg RH, et al.The mobile segment above fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb,1996,134(2):171-6.
[11]Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL. Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine,1996,21(8):970-81.
[12]Dubois G, de Germay B, Schaerer NS, et al. Dynamic neutralization:a new concept for restabilization of the Spine. In:Spzalski M, Gunzburg R, Pope MH, eds. Lumbar Segmental Instability. Philadelphia, PA:Lipincott, Williams and Wilkins,1999, 15:233-40.
[13]Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, et al. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system:An in vitro study [J]. Eur Spine J,2006,15:913-922.
[14]Grob D, Benini A, Junge A,et al. Clinical experience with the dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine:surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine,2005,30:324-331.
[15]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralisation system for the spine:a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J;2002,11 (suppl 2):170-8.
[16]Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B.Minimum four-years follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine,2008,33:636-642.
[17]James Beastall, Efthimios Karadimas, Manal Siddiqui,et al. The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system:A preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Spine,2007,32:685-690.
[18]Wild A, Jaeger M, Bushe C, et al. Biomechanical analysis of Graf's dynamic spine stabilisation system ex vivo. Biomed Tech (Berl),2001,46:290-294.
[19]Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B.Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine,2006,31:442-449.
[20]Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, et al. Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine,1987,12:97-104.
[21]Kumar A, Beastall J, Hughes J,et al.Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years.Spine,2008,33:2909-2914.
[22]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, et al. Application of a dynamic pedicle screw system (DYNESYS) for lumbar segmental degenerations comparison of clinical and radiological results for different indications Z Orthop,2004,142(2):166-173.
[1]Yorimitsu E, Chiba K, Toyama Y, et al. Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation:a follow-up of more than 10 years.Spine,2001,26:652-7.
[2]Frei H, Oxland TR, Rathonyi GC, et al. The effect of nucleotomy on lumbar spine mechanics in compression and shear loading. Spine,2001,26:2080-9.
[3]Rahm MD, Hall MD. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion With instrumentation:a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord,1996,9:392-400.
[4]Fairbank JCT, Couper J, et al. The oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy,1980,8:271.
[5]Chapman CR, Casey KL, Dubner R, et al. Pain measurement:an overview. Pain,1985, 22:1-31.
[6]Macnab L. Negative disc exploration. An analysis of the causes of nerve-root involvement in sixty-eight patients. J Bone Joint Surg(Am),1971,53:891-903.
[7]侯树勋,李明全,白巍,等.腰椎髓核摘除术远期疗效评价.中华骨科杂志,2003,23(9)：513-516.
[8]Kotilainen E, Alanen A, Erkintalo M, et al. Association between decreased disc signal intensity in preoperative T2-weighted MRI and a 5-year outcome after lumbar minimally invasive discectomy. Minim Invasive Neurosurg,2001,44:31-6.
[9]靳安民,姚伟涛,张辉.腰椎间盘突出症术后疗效不佳的原因及对策.中华骨科杂志,2003,23(11)：657-660.
[10]Suezawa Y. Indications for and choice of reintervention in failed back operations. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb,1990,128:276-81.
[11]Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, et al. Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine,1987,12(2):97-104.
[12]Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, et al. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system:An in vitro study. Eur Spine J,2006,15:913-922.
[13]Vaga S, Brayda-Bruno M, Perona F,et al.Molecular MR imaging for the evaluation of the effect of dynamic stabilization on lumbar intervertebral discs.Eur Spine, 2009,18:(suppl 1)S40-S48.
[14]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF,et al.The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse:nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone.Spine,2005,30:E109-E114.
[15]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine:a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J,2002,11(suppl 2):S170-S178.
[1]Takeshima T, Kambara K, Miyata S, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of disc excision for lumbar disc herniation with and without posterolateral fusion. Spine,2000,25:450-6.
[2]Yorimitsu E, Chiba K, Toyama Y, et al. Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation:a follow-up of more than 10 years.Spine,2001,26:652-7.
[3]Maroon JC. Current concepts in minimally invasive discectomy. Neurosurgery,2002, 51(Suppl2):137-45.
[4]OstiOL, Vernon-Roberts B, Fraser RD. Annulus tears and intervertebral disc degeneration:an experimental study using an animal model. Spine,1990,15:762-7.
[5]Zuchermann J, Hsu K, Picetti G, et al. Clinical efficacy of spinal instrumentation in lumbar degenerative disc disease. Spine,1992,17:834-7.
[6]Rahm MD, Hall MD. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation:a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord,1996,9:392-400.
[7]Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion:a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop 1999;28:336-40.
[8]Frei H, Oxland TR, Rathonyi GC, et al. The effect of nucleotomy on lumbar spine mechanics in compression and shear loading. Spine,2001,26:2080-9.
[9]Harrington PR, Dickson JH. Spinal instrumentation in the treatment of severe progressive spondylolisthesis.Clin Orthop,1976,117:157-63.
[10]Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Berteaux D, et al. Vertebral osteosynthesis using metal plates. Its different uses. Chirurgie,1979,105(7):597-603.
[11]Magerl F. Stabilization of the lower thoracic and lumbar spine with external skeletal fixation. Clin Orthop 1984;189:125-41.
[12]Dick W, Kluger P, Magerl F, et al. A new device for internal fixation of thoracolumbar and lumbar spine fractures:the fixateur interne. Paraplegia,1985,23(4):225-32.
[13]Steffee AD, Biscup RS, Sitkowski DJ. Segmental spine plates with pedicular fixation. A new internal fixation device for disorders of the lumbar and thoracolumbar spine. Clin Orthop,1986,203:45-53.
[14]Christensen FB. Lumbar spinal fusion:outcome in relation to surgical methods, choice of implant and postoperative rehabilitation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl,2004, 74(313):41-43.
[15]Fritzell P, Hagg O, Nordwall A,et al. Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain:comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Eur Spine J,2003,26(5 Suppl):S545-8.
[16]Rompe JD, Eysel P, Zollner J, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long-term results after under-cutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion. Neurosurg Rev,1999,22(2-3):102-106.
[17]Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, et al. Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine,1987,12(2):97-104.
[18]Aota Y, Kumano K, Hirabayashi S. Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord,1995,8(6):464-73.
[19]Rahm MD, Hall BB. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with
instrumentation:a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord,1996,9(6):392-400.
[20]Schulitz KP, Wiesner L, Wittenberg RH, et al.The mobile segment above fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb,1996,134(2):171-6.
[21]Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL. Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine,1996,21 (8):970-81.
[22]Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA,1992,268:907-11.
[23]Agazzi S, Reverdin A,May D. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages:an independent review of 71 cases. J Neurosurg,1999,91(suppl 2):186-92.
[24]Christensen BF,Hansen ES, LaursenM, et al. Long-termfunctional outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation as a support for posterolateral spinal fusion:randomized clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Spine,2002,27:1269-77.
[25]Fischgrund JS,MackayM, Herkowitz HN, et al.1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis:a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine,1997,22:2807-12.
[26]Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessbert P, et al.2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain. Spine,2001,26:2521-34.
[27]Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, et al. Chronic low back pain and fusion:a comparison of three surgical techniques:a prospective multicenter randomised study fromthe Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine,2002,27:1131-41.
[28]Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK. Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization. Eur Spine J,2002,11(suppl 2):198-201.
[29]Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK. Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization. Eur Spine J,2002,11(Suppl 2):S198-205.
[30]Boos N, Webb JK. Pedicle screw fixation in spinal disorders:a European view. Eur SpineJ,1997,6(1):2-18.
[31]Dubois G, de Germay B, Schaerer NS, et al. Dynamic neutralization:a new concept for restabilization of the Spine. In:Spzalski M, Gunzburg R, Pope MH, eds. Lumbar Segmental Instability. Philadelphia, PA:Lipincott, Williams and Wilkins,1999,15: 233-40.
[32]Senegas J.Mechanical supplementation by non-rigid fixation in degerative intervertebral lumbar segments:the Wallis system. Eur Spine J,2002,11 (Supple 2):S164-169.
[33]Kanayama M,Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K,et al. A minimum 10-year follow-up of posterior dynamic stabilization using Graf artificial ligament. Spine,2007,32(18): 1992-1996.
[34]Niosi CA, Oxland TR. Degenerative mechanics of the lumbar spine. Spine,2004,4(6 Suppl):202S-8S.
[35]Fujiwara A, Lim TH, An HS, et al. The relationship between disc degeneration and facet joint osteoarthritis on the segmental flexibility of the lumbar spine.Spine,2000, 25:3036-44.
[36]Fujiwara A, Tamai K, An HS, et al. The relationship between disc degeneration, facet joint osteoarthritis, and stability of the degenerative lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord, 2000,13:444-50.
[37]Farfan HF, Huberdeau RM, Dubow HI. Lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration:the influence of geometrical features on the pattern of disc degeneration—a post mortem study. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1972,54(3):492-519.
[38]Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, et al. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system:An in vitro study [J]. Eur Spine J,2006,15:913-922.
[39]Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc:an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J,2006,15:1276-1285.
[40]Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Meade KP, et al. A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine,1999,24:1003-1009.
[41]Meyers K, Tauber M, Sudin Y,et al.Use of instrumented pedicle screws to evaluate load sharing in posterior dynamic stabilization systems.The Spine Journal,2008,8:926-932.
[42]Niosi CA, Wilson DC, Zhu Q,et al. The effect of Dynesys posterior stabilization on facet joint contact forces.Spine,2008,33:19-26.
[43]Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M,et al.The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants. on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decomprssion.Eur Spine J,2008,17:1057-1065.
[44]Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments:an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2003,16:418-23
[45]James Beastall, Efthimios Karadimas, Manal Siddiqui, et al.The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system-A preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance
imaging findings.Spine,2007,32:685-690.
[46]SchmoelzW, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments. J Spinal Disord Tech,2003,16:418-23.
[47]Ghiselli G, Wang J, Bhatia N, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2004,86-A:1497-503.
[48]Kumar M, Jacquot F, Hall H. Long term follow up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J,2001,10:309-13.
[49]Eck J, Humphreys S, Hodges S. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion:A review of clinical biomechanical and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop,1999,28:336-40.
[50]Goto K, TajimaN,Ghosa E, et al. Effects of lumbar spinal fusion on the other intervertebral levels (three dimensional finite element analysis). J Orthop Sci,2003,8:577-84.
[51]Penta M, Sandu A, Fraser RD. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of disc degeneration 10 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine,1995,20:743-7.
[52]Cakir B, Carazzo C, Schmidt R,et al. Adjacent segment mobility after rigid and semigid instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine,2009,34:1287-1291.
[53]Cunningham BW, Kotani Y, McNulty PS, et al. The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure:an in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine,1997,22:2655-63.
[54]Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD,HerbertM, et al. Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine,1995,20:526-31.
[55]NagataH, SchendelMJ, Transfeldt EE, et al. The effects of immobilization of long segments of the spine on the adjacent and distal facet force and lumbo-sacral motion. Spine,1993,18:2471-9.
[56]DekutoskiMB, SchendelMJ,Ogilvie JW, et al. Comparison of in vivo and in vitro adjacent segment motion after lumbar fusion. Spine,1994,19:1745-51.
[57]Kotani Y, Cunningham BW, Cappuccino A, et al. The effects of spinal fixation and destabilization on the biomechanical and histologic properties of spinal ligaments. An in vivo study. Spine,1998,23:672-82.
[58]Dubois G, de Germay B, Prere J, et al. Dynamic neutralisation:treatment of mobile vertebral instability. In:Kaech DL, Jinkins JR (eds) Spinal restabilization procedures. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,2002,13:345-354.
[59]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF,et al.The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse:nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone.Spine,2005,30:E109-E114.
[60]Putzier M,Schneider SV,Funk J,et al.Application of a dynamic pedicle screw system (DYNESYS) for lumbar segmental degenerations comparison of clinical and radiological results for different indications.Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb,2004,142 (2):166-173.
[61]Freudiger S,Dubois G,Lorrain M.Dynamic neutralisation of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg,1999, 119 (3～4):127—132.
[62]Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B.Minimum four-years follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine,2008,33:636-642.
[63]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine:a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J,2002,11(suppl 2):S170-S178.
[64]Wild A, Jaeger M, Bushe C, et al. Biomechanical analysis of Graf's dynamic spine stabilisation system ex vivo. Biomed Tech (Berl),2001,46:290-4.
[65]Rahm MD, Hall BB. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation:a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord,1996,9:392-400.
[66]Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments:an in vitro experiment.J Spinal Disord Tech,2003,16:418-23.
[67]Beastall J, Karadimas E, Siddiqui M, et al. The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system:a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Spine,2007,32:685-90.
[68]Grob D, Benini A, Junge A,et al. Clinical experience with the dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine:surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine,2005,30:324-331.
[69]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralisation system for the spine:a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J,2002,11(suppl 2):170-8.
[70]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk J,et al. Application of a dynamic pedicle screw system (DYNESYS) for lumbar segmental degenerations—comparison of clinical and radiological results for different indications. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb,2004,142(2): 166-73.
[71]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine:a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J,2002,11(Suppl 2):S170-8.
[72]Cakir B, Ulmar B, Koepp H, et al. Posterior dynamic stabilization as an alternative for instrumented fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability with spinal stenosis. Z Orthop,2003,141:418-24.
[73]Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B.Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine, 2006,31:442-449.
[74]Guigui P, Chopin D. Assessment of the use of the Graf ligamentoplasty in the surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Apropos of a series of 26 patients. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot,1994,80:681-8.
[75]Wild A, Jaeger M, Bushe C, et al. Biomechanical analysis of Graf s dynamic spine stabilisation system ex vivo. Biomed Tech (Berl),2001,46:290-294.
[76]Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, et al. Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine,1987,12:97-104.
[77]Kumar A, Beastall J, Hughes J,et al.Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years.Spine,2008,33:2909-2914.
[78]Penta M, Sandhu A, Fraser RD. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of disc degeneration 10 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine,1995,20:743-747.
[79]Ghiselli G,Wang JC, Bhatia NN, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2004,86-A:1497-1503.
[80]Singh K, An HS. Motion preservation technologies:alternatives to spinal fusion. Am J Orthop,2006,35:411-416.
[81]Vaga S, Brayda-Bruno M, Perona F,et al.Molecular MR imaging for the evaluation of the effect of dynamic stabilization on lumbar intervertebral discs.Eur Spine,2009, 18:(suppl 1)S40-S48.
[82]Wurgler-Hauri CC, Kalbarczyk A, Wiesli M,et al.Dynamic neutralization of the lumbar spine after microsurgical decompression in acquired lumbar spinal stenosis and segmental instability.Spine,2008,33:E66-E72.
[83]Sanden B,Olerud C,Petren-Mallmin M,et al.The significance of radiolucent zones surrounding pedicle screws.Definition of screw loosening in spinal instrumentation.J Bone Joint Surg Br,2004,86:457-461.
[84]Tokuhashi Y,Matsuzaki H,Oda H,et al.Clinical course and significance of the clear zone around the pedicle screws in the lumbar degenerative disease. Spine,2008, 33:903-908.
[85]Dakhil-Jerew F, Jadeja H, Cohen A,et al.Inter-observer reliability of detecting dynesys pedicle screw using plain X-rays:a study on 50 post-operative patients. Eur Spine J,2009,18:1486-93.
[86]Block MS, Kent JN, Kay JF.Evaluation of hydroxylaptite-coated titanium dental implants in dogs.J Oral Maxillofac Surg,1987,45:601-607.
[87]Fini M,Giavaresi QGreggi T,et al.Biological assessment of the bone-screw interface after insertion of uncoated and hydroxyapatite-coated pedicular screws in the osteopenic sheep.J Biomed Mater Res A,2003,66:176-183.
[2]Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion:a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop,1999, 28:336-40.
[3]Takeshima T, Kambara K, Miyata S, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of disc excision for lumbar disc herniatiori with and without postero-lateral fusion. Spine,2000,25:450-6.
[4]Frei H, Oxland TR, Rathonyi GC, et al. The effect of nucleotomy on lumbar spine mechanics in compression and shear loading. Spine,2001;26:2080-9.
[5]Maroon JC. Current concepts in minimally invasive discectomy. Neurosurgery,2002, 51(Suppl2):137-45.
[6]Yorimitsu E, Chiba K, Toyama Y, et al. Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation:a follow-up of more than 10 years.Spine,2001,26:652-7.
[7]Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA,1992,268(5):907-911.
[8]Agazzi S, Reverdin A,May D. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages:an independent review of 71 cases. J Neurosurg,1999,91(suppl 2):186-192.
[9]Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, et al. Chronic low back pain and fusion:a comparison of three surgical techniques:a prospective multicenter randomised study fromthe Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine,2002,27(3):1131-1141.
[10]Andersen T, Christensen FB, Hansen ES, et al. Pain 5 years after instrumented and non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J,2003,12(7):393-399.
[11]France JC, Yaszemski MJ, Lauerman WC, et al. A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion:outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation.
Spine,1999,24(6):553-560.
[12]Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK. Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization. Eur Spine J,2002,11(suppl 2):198-205.
[13]Boos N, Webb JK. Pedicle screw fixation in spinal disorders:a European view. Eur SpineJ,1997,6(l):2-18.
[14]Freudiger S, Dubois G, Lorrrain M.Dynamic neutralisation of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg,1999,116:127-132.
[15]Schwarzenbach O,Berlemann U, Stoll T,et al.Posterior Dynamic Stabilisation Systems: DYNESYS. Orthop Clin N Am,2005,36:363-372.
[16]Dubois G, de Germay B, Schaerer NS, et al. Dynamic neutralization:a new concept for restabilization of the Spine. In:Spzalski M, Gunzburg R, Pope MH, eds. Lumbar Segmental Instability. Philadelphia, PA:Lipincott, Williams and Wilkins,1999:233-40.
[17]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine:A multi-center study of a novel non fusion system. Eur Spine J,2002, 11(2):170-178.
[18]Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments. J Spine Disord Tech,2003,16(4):418-423.
[19]Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, et al. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system:An in vitro study. Eur Spine J,2006,15(6):913-922.
[20]Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M,et al.The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decomprssion.Eur Spine J,2008,17:1057-1065.
[21]Cakir B, Carazzo C, Schmidt R,et al. Adjacent segment mobility after rigid and semigid instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine,2009,34:1287-1291.
[22]James Beastall, Efthimios Karadimas, Manal Siddiqui, et al.The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system-A preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings.Spine,2007,32:685-690.
[23]Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B.Minimum four-years follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine,2008,33:636-642.
[24]Grob D, Benini A, Junge A,et al. Clinical experience with the dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine:surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine,2005,30:324-331.
[25]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF,et al.The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse:nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone.Spine,2005,30:E109-E114.
[26]Dubois G, de Germay B, Prere J, et al.Dynamic neutralisation:treatment of mobile vertebral instability. Amsterdam, The Netherlands,2002,23:345-354.
[27]Fischgrund JS,MackayM, Herkowitz HN, et al. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis:a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine,1997, 22:2807-12.
[28]Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA,1992,268:907-11.
[29]Agazzi S, Reverdin A,May D. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages:an independent review of 71 cases. J Neurosurg,1999,91(suppl 2):186-92.
[1]Maroon JC. Current concepts in minimally invasive discectomy. Neurosurgery,2002, 51(3):S137-S145.
[2]Yorimitsu E, Chiba K, Toyama Y, et al. Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation:a follow-up study of more than 10 years. Spine,2001, 26(4):652-657.
[3]Kotilainen E, Valtonen S. Clinical instability of the lumbar spine after microdiscectomy. Acta Neurochir(Wien),1993,125(3):120-126.
[4]Rahm M, Hall B. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation:a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord,1996,9(2):392-400.
[5]Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA,1992,268(5):907-911.
[6]Agazzi S, Reverdin A,May D. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages:an independent review of 71 cases. J Neurosurg,1999,91(suppl 2):186-192.
[7]Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, et al. Chronic low back pain and fusion:a comparison of three surgical techniques:a prospective multicenter randomised study fromthe Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine,2002,27(3):1131-1141.
[8]Andersen T, Christensen FB, Hansen ES, et al. Pain 5 years after instrumented and non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J,2003,12(7):393-399.
[9]France JC, Yaszemski MJ, Lauerman WC, et al. A randomized prospective study of posterolateral lumbar fusion:outcomes with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine,1999,24(6):553-560.
[10]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine:A multi-center study of a novel non fusion system. Eur Spine J,2002, 11(2):170-178.
[11]Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments. J Spine Disord Tech,2003,16(4):418-423.
[12]Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, et al. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system:An in vitro study. Eur Spine J,2006,15(6):913-922.
[13]Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M, et al. The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decompression. Eur Spine J,2008,17(8):1057-1065.
[14]Beastall J, Karadimas E, Siddiqui M, et al.The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system:a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance.Spine,2007, 32(6):685-690.
[15]Ghiselli G, Wang J, Bhatia N, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2004,86-A:1497-1503.
[16]Kumar M, Jacquot F, Hall H. Long term follow up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J,2001,10(4):309-313.
[17]Eck J, Humphreys S, Hodges S. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion:A review of clinical biomechanical and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop,1999,28(3):336-340.
[18]Goto K, TajimaN,Ghosa E, et al. Effects of lumbar spinal fusion on the other intervertebral levels (three-dimensional finite element analysis). J Orthop Sci,2003, 8(5):577-384.
[19]Vaga S, Brayda-Bruno M, Perona F, et al. Molecular MR imaging for the evaluation of the effect of dynamic stabilization on lumbar intervertebral discs. Eur Spine J,2009, 18(suppl 1):s40-s48.
[20]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, et al. The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse:nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone.Spine,2005,30(5):E109-E114.
[21]Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B. Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine, 2006,31(4):442-449.
[22]Grob D, Benini A, Junge A,et al. Clinical experience with the dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine:surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years.Spine,2005,30(3):324-331.
[23]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, et al. Application of a dynamic pedicle screw system (DYNESYS) for lumbar segmental degenerations comparison of clinical and radiological results for different indications Z Orthop,2004,142(2):166-173.
[24]Freudiger S,Dubois QLorrain M.Dynamic neutralisation of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg,1999,19(3):127-132.
[25]Bothmann M, Kast E, Boldt GJ,et al. Dynesys fixation for lumbar spine degeneration. Neurosurg Rev,2008,31(2):189-196.
[1]Fairbank JCT, Couper J, et al. The oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy,1980,8:271.
[2]Chapman CR, Casey KL, Dubner R, et al. Pain measurement:an overview. Pain,1985, 22:1-31.
[3]Macnab L. Negative disc exploration. An analysis of the causes of nerve-root involvement in sixty-eight patients. J Bone Joint Surg(Am),1971,53:891-903.
[4]Christensen FB. Lumbar spinal fusion:outcome in relation to surgicalmethods, choice of implant and postoperative rehabilitation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl,2004, 74(313):1-43.
[5]Fritzell P, Hagg O, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group.Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain:comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Eur Spine J,2003,26(5 Suppl):S545-8.
[6]Rompe JD, Eysel P, Zollner J, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long-term results after under-cutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion. Neurosurg Rev,1999,22(2-3):102-106.
[7]Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, et al. Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine,1987,12(2):97-104.
[8]Aota Y, Kumano K, Hirabayashi S. Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord,1995,8(6):464-73.
[9]Rahm MD, Hall BB. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation:a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord,1996,9(6):392-400.
[10]Schulitz KP, Wiesner L, Wittenberg RH, et al.The mobile segment above fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb,1996,134(2):171-6.
[11]Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL. Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine,1996,21(8):970-81.
[12]Dubois G, de Germay B, Schaerer NS, et al. Dynamic neutralization:a new concept for restabilization of the Spine. In:Spzalski M, Gunzburg R, Pope MH, eds. Lumbar Segmental Instability. Philadelphia, PA:Lipincott, Williams and Wilkins,1999, 15:233-40.
[13]Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, et al. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system:An in vitro study [J]. Eur Spine J,2006,15:913-922.
[14]Grob D, Benini A, Junge A,et al. Clinical experience with the dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine:surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine,2005,30:324-331.
[15]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralisation system for the spine:a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J;2002,11 (suppl 2):170-8.
[16]Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B.Minimum four-years follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine,2008,33:636-642.
[17]James Beastall, Efthimios Karadimas, Manal Siddiqui,et al. The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system:A preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Spine,2007,32:685-690.
[18]Wild A, Jaeger M, Bushe C, et al. Biomechanical analysis of Graf's dynamic spine stabilisation system ex vivo. Biomed Tech (Berl),2001,46:290-294.
[19]Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B.Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine,2006,31:442-449.
[20]Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, et al. Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine,1987,12:97-104.
[21]Kumar A, Beastall J, Hughes J,et al.Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years.Spine,2008,33:2909-2914.
[22]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF, et al. Application of a dynamic pedicle screw system (DYNESYS) for lumbar segmental degenerations comparison of clinical and radiological results for different indications Z Orthop,2004,142(2):166-173.
[1]Yorimitsu E, Chiba K, Toyama Y, et al. Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation:a follow-up of more than 10 years.Spine,2001,26:652-7.
[2]Frei H, Oxland TR, Rathonyi GC, et al. The effect of nucleotomy on lumbar spine mechanics in compression and shear loading. Spine,2001,26:2080-9.
[3]Rahm MD, Hall MD. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion With instrumentation:a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord,1996,9:392-400.
[4]Fairbank JCT, Couper J, et al. The oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy,1980,8:271.
[5]Chapman CR, Casey KL, Dubner R, et al. Pain measurement:an overview. Pain,1985, 22:1-31.
[6]Macnab L. Negative disc exploration. An analysis of the causes of nerve-root involvement in sixty-eight patients. J Bone Joint Surg(Am),1971,53:891-903.
[7]侯树勋,李明全,白巍,等.腰椎髓核摘除术远期疗效评价.中华骨科杂志,2003,23(9)：513-516.
[8]Kotilainen E, Alanen A, Erkintalo M, et al. Association between decreased disc signal intensity in preoperative T2-weighted MRI and a 5-year outcome after lumbar minimally invasive discectomy. Minim Invasive Neurosurg,2001,44:31-6.
[9]靳安民,姚伟涛,张辉.腰椎间盘突出症术后疗效不佳的原因及对策.中华骨科杂志,2003,23(11)：657-660.
[10]Suezawa Y. Indications for and choice of reintervention in failed back operations. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb,1990,128:276-81.
[11]Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, et al. Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine,1987,12(2):97-104.
[12]Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, et al. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system:An in vitro study. Eur Spine J,2006,15:913-922.
[13]Vaga S, Brayda-Bruno M, Perona F,et al.Molecular MR imaging for the evaluation of the effect of dynamic stabilization on lumbar intervertebral discs.Eur Spine, 2009,18:(suppl 1)S40-S48.
[14]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF,et al.The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse:nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone.Spine,2005,30:E109-E114.
[15]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine:a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J,2002,11(suppl 2):S170-S178.
[1]Takeshima T, Kambara K, Miyata S, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of disc excision for lumbar disc herniation with and without posterolateral fusion. Spine,2000,25:450-6.
[2]Yorimitsu E, Chiba K, Toyama Y, et al. Long-term outcomes of standard discectomy for lumbar disc herniation:a follow-up of more than 10 years.Spine,2001,26:652-7.
[3]Maroon JC. Current concepts in minimally invasive discectomy. Neurosurgery,2002, 51(Suppl2):137-45.
[4]OstiOL, Vernon-Roberts B, Fraser RD. Annulus tears and intervertebral disc degeneration:an experimental study using an animal model. Spine,1990,15:762-7.
[5]Zuchermann J, Hsu K, Picetti G, et al. Clinical efficacy of spinal instrumentation in lumbar degenerative disc disease. Spine,1992,17:834-7.
[6]Rahm MD, Hall MD. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation:a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord,1996,9:392-400.
[7]Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Hodges SD. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion:a review of clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop 1999;28:336-40.
[8]Frei H, Oxland TR, Rathonyi GC, et al. The effect of nucleotomy on lumbar spine mechanics in compression and shear loading. Spine,2001,26:2080-9.
[9]Harrington PR, Dickson JH. Spinal instrumentation in the treatment of severe progressive spondylolisthesis.Clin Orthop,1976,117:157-63.
[10]Roy-Camille R, Saillant G, Berteaux D, et al. Vertebral osteosynthesis using metal plates. Its different uses. Chirurgie,1979,105(7):597-603.
[11]Magerl F. Stabilization of the lower thoracic and lumbar spine with external skeletal fixation. Clin Orthop 1984;189:125-41.
[12]Dick W, Kluger P, Magerl F, et al. A new device for internal fixation of thoracolumbar and lumbar spine fractures:the fixateur interne. Paraplegia,1985,23(4):225-32.
[13]Steffee AD, Biscup RS, Sitkowski DJ. Segmental spine plates with pedicular fixation. A new internal fixation device for disorders of the lumbar and thoracolumbar spine. Clin Orthop,1986,203:45-53.
[14]Christensen FB. Lumbar spinal fusion:outcome in relation to surgical methods, choice of implant and postoperative rehabilitation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl,2004, 74(313):41-43.
[15]Fritzell P, Hagg O, Nordwall A,et al. Complications in lumbar fusion surgery for chronic low back pain:comparison of three surgical techniques used in a prospective randomized study. A report from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Eur Spine J,2003,26(5 Suppl):S545-8.
[16]Rompe JD, Eysel P, Zollner J, et al. Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Long-term results after under-cutting decompression compared with decompressive laminectomy alone or with instrumented fusion. Neurosurg Rev,1999,22(2-3):102-106.
[17]Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, et al. Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine,1987,12(2):97-104.
[18]Aota Y, Kumano K, Hirabayashi S. Postfusion instability at the adjacent segments after rigid pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord,1995,8(6):464-73.
[19]Rahm MD, Hall BB. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with
instrumentation:a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord,1996,9(6):392-400.
[20]Schulitz KP, Wiesner L, Wittenberg RH, et al.The mobile segment above fusion. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb,1996,134(2):171-6.
[21]Schlegel JD, Smith JA, Schleusener RL. Lumbar motion segment pathology adjacent to thoracolumbar, lumbar, and lumbosacral fusions. Spine,1996,21 (8):970-81.
[22]Turner JA, Ersek M, Herron L, et al. Patient outcomes after lumbar spinal fusions. JAMA,1992,268:907-11.
[23]Agazzi S, Reverdin A,May D. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages:an independent review of 71 cases. J Neurosurg,1999,91(suppl 2):186-92.
[24]Christensen BF,Hansen ES, LaursenM, et al. Long-termfunctional outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation as a support for posterolateral spinal fusion:randomized clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Spine,2002,27:1269-77.
[25]Fischgrund JS,MackayM, Herkowitz HN, et al.1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis:a prospective, randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine,1997,22:2807-12.
[26]Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessbert P, et al.2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain. Spine,2001,26:2521-34.
[27]Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, et al. Chronic low back pain and fusion:a comparison of three surgical techniques:a prospective multicenter randomised study fromthe Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine,2002,27:1131-41.
[28]Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK. Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization. Eur Spine J,2002,11(suppl 2):198-201.
[29]Mulholland RC, Sengupta DK. Rationale, principles and experimental evaluation of the concept of soft stabilization. Eur Spine J,2002,11(Suppl 2):S198-205.
[30]Boos N, Webb JK. Pedicle screw fixation in spinal disorders:a European view. Eur SpineJ,1997,6(1):2-18.
[31]Dubois G, de Germay B, Schaerer NS, et al. Dynamic neutralization:a new concept for restabilization of the Spine. In:Spzalski M, Gunzburg R, Pope MH, eds. Lumbar Segmental Instability. Philadelphia, PA:Lipincott, Williams and Wilkins,1999,15: 233-40.
[32]Senegas J.Mechanical supplementation by non-rigid fixation in degerative intervertebral lumbar segments:the Wallis system. Eur Spine J,2002,11 (Supple 2):S164-169.
[33]Kanayama M,Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K,et al. A minimum 10-year follow-up of posterior dynamic stabilization using Graf artificial ligament. Spine,2007,32(18): 1992-1996.
[34]Niosi CA, Oxland TR. Degenerative mechanics of the lumbar spine. Spine,2004,4(6 Suppl):202S-8S.
[35]Fujiwara A, Lim TH, An HS, et al. The relationship between disc degeneration and facet joint osteoarthritis on the segmental flexibility of the lumbar spine.Spine,2000, 25:3036-44.
[36]Fujiwara A, Tamai K, An HS, et al. The relationship between disc degeneration, facet joint osteoarthritis, and stability of the degenerative lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord, 2000,13:444-50.
[37]Farfan HF, Huberdeau RM, Dubow HI. Lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration:the influence of geometrical features on the pattern of disc degeneration—a post mortem study. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1972,54(3):492-519.
[38]Niosi CA, Zhu QA, Wilson DC, et al. Biomechanical characterization of the three-dimensional kinematic behaviour of the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system:An in vitro study [J]. Eur Spine J,2006,15:913-922.
[39]Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Influence of a dynamic stabilisation system on load bearing of a bridged disc:an in vitro study of intradiscal pressure. Eur Spine J,2006,15:1276-1285.
[40]Patwardhan AG, Havey RM, Meade KP, et al. A follower load increases the load-carrying capacity of the lumbar spine in compression. Spine,1999,24:1003-1009.
[41]Meyers K, Tauber M, Sudin Y,et al.Use of instrumented pedicle screws to evaluate load sharing in posterior dynamic stabilization systems.The Spine Journal,2008,8:926-932.
[42]Niosi CA, Wilson DC, Zhu Q,et al. The effect of Dynesys posterior stabilization on facet joint contact forces.Spine,2008,33:19-26.
[43]Schulte TL, Hurschler C, Haversath M,et al.The effect of dynamic, semi-rigid implants. on the range of motion of lumbar motion segments after decomprssion.Eur Spine J,2008,17:1057-1065.
[44]Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments:an in vitro experiment. J Spinal Disord Tech, 2003,16:418-23
[45]James Beastall, Efthimios Karadimas, Manal Siddiqui, et al.The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system-A preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance
imaging findings.Spine,2007,32:685-690.
[46]SchmoelzW, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments. J Spinal Disord Tech,2003,16:418-23.
[47]Ghiselli G, Wang J, Bhatia N, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2004,86-A:1497-503.
[48]Kumar M, Jacquot F, Hall H. Long term follow up of functional outcomes and radiographic changes at adjacent levels following lumbar spine fusion for degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J,2001,10:309-13.
[49]Eck J, Humphreys S, Hodges S. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion:A review of clinical biomechanical and radiologic studies. Am J Orthop,1999,28:336-40.
[50]Goto K, TajimaN,Ghosa E, et al. Effects of lumbar spinal fusion on the other intervertebral levels (three dimensional finite element analysis). J Orthop Sci,2003,8:577-84.
[51]Penta M, Sandu A, Fraser RD. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of disc degeneration 10 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine,1995,20:743-7.
[52]Cakir B, Carazzo C, Schmidt R,et al. Adjacent segment mobility after rigid and semigid instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Spine,2009,34:1287-1291.
[53]Cunningham BW, Kotani Y, McNulty PS, et al. The effect of spinal destabilization and instrumentation on lumbar intradiscal pressure:an in vitro biomechanical analysis. Spine,1997,22:2655-63.
[54]Weinhoffer SL, Guyer RD,HerbertM, et al. Intradiscal pressure measurements above an instrumented fusion. A cadaveric study. Spine,1995,20:526-31.
[55]NagataH, SchendelMJ, Transfeldt EE, et al. The effects of immobilization of long segments of the spine on the adjacent and distal facet force and lumbo-sacral motion. Spine,1993,18:2471-9.
[56]DekutoskiMB, SchendelMJ,Ogilvie JW, et al. Comparison of in vivo and in vitro adjacent segment motion after lumbar fusion. Spine,1994,19:1745-51.
[57]Kotani Y, Cunningham BW, Cappuccino A, et al. The effects of spinal fixation and destabilization on the biomechanical and histologic properties of spinal ligaments. An in vivo study. Spine,1998,23:672-82.
[58]Dubois G, de Germay B, Prere J, et al. Dynamic neutralisation:treatment of mobile vertebral instability. In:Kaech DL, Jinkins JR (eds) Spinal restabilization procedures. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,2002,13:345-354.
[59]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk JF,et al.The surgical treatment of the lumbar disc prolapse:nucleotomy with additional transpedicular dynamic stabilization versus nucleotomy alone.Spine,2005,30:E109-E114.
[60]Putzier M,Schneider SV,Funk J,et al.Application of a dynamic pedicle screw system (DYNESYS) for lumbar segmental degenerations comparison of clinical and radiological results for different indications.Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb,2004,142 (2):166-173.
[61]Freudiger S,Dubois G,Lorrain M.Dynamic neutralisation of the lumbar spine confirmed on a new lumbar spine simulator in vitro.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg,1999, 119 (3～4):127—132.
[62]Schaeren S, Broger I, Jeanneret B.Minimum four-years follow-up of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression and dynamic stabilization. Spine,2008,33:636-642.
[63]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine:a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J,2002,11(suppl 2):S170-S178.
[64]Wild A, Jaeger M, Bushe C, et al. Biomechanical analysis of Graf's dynamic spine stabilisation system ex vivo. Biomed Tech (Berl),2001,46:290-4.
[65]Rahm MD, Hall BB. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation:a retrospective study. J Spinal Disord,1996,9:392-400.
[66]Schmoelz W, Huber JF, Nydegger T, et al. Dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine and its effects on adjacent segments:an in vitro experiment.J Spinal Disord Tech,2003,16:418-23.
[67]Beastall J, Karadimas E, Siddiqui M, et al. The Dynesys lumbar spinal stabilization system:a preliminary report on positional magnetic resonance imaging findings. Spine,2007,32:685-90.
[68]Grob D, Benini A, Junge A,et al. Clinical experience with the dynesys semirigid fixation system for the lumbar spine:surgical and patient-oriented outcome in 50 cases after an average of 2 years. Spine,2005,30:324-331.
[69]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralisation system for the spine:a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J,2002,11(suppl 2):170-8.
[70]Putzier M, Schneider SV, Funk J,et al. Application of a dynamic pedicle screw system (DYNESYS) for lumbar segmental degenerations—comparison of clinical and radiological results for different indications. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb,2004,142(2): 166-73.
[71]Stoll TM, Dubois G, Schwarzenbach O. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine:a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system. Eur Spine J,2002,11(Suppl 2):S170-8.
[72]Cakir B, Ulmar B, Koepp H, et al. Posterior dynamic stabilization as an alternative for instrumented fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar instability with spinal stenosis. Z Orthop,2003,141:418-24.
[73]Schnake KJ, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B.Dynamic stabilization in addition to decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine, 2006,31:442-449.
[74]Guigui P, Chopin D. Assessment of the use of the Graf ligamentoplasty in the surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Apropos of a series of 26 patients. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot,1994,80:681-8.
[75]Wild A, Jaeger M, Bushe C, et al. Biomechanical analysis of Graf s dynamic spine stabilisation system ex vivo. Biomed Tech (Berl),2001,46:290-294.
[76]Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, et al. Long-term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine,1987,12:97-104.
[77]Kumar A, Beastall J, Hughes J,et al.Disc changes in the bridged and adjacent segments after dynesys dynamic stabilization system after two years.Spine,2008,33:2909-2914.
[78]Penta M, Sandhu A, Fraser RD. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of disc degeneration 10 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine,1995,20:743-747.
[79]Ghiselli G,Wang JC, Bhatia NN, et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2004,86-A:1497-1503.
[80]Singh K, An HS. Motion preservation technologies:alternatives to spinal fusion. Am J Orthop,2006,35:411-416.
[81]Vaga S, Brayda-Bruno M, Perona F,et al.Molecular MR imaging for the evaluation of the effect of dynamic stabilization on lumbar intervertebral discs.Eur Spine,2009, 18:(suppl 1)S40-S48.
[82]Wurgler-Hauri CC, Kalbarczyk A, Wiesli M,et al.Dynamic neutralization of the lumbar spine after microsurgical decompression in acquired lumbar spinal stenosis and segmental instability.Spine,2008,33:E66-E72.
[83]Sanden B,Olerud C,Petren-Mallmin M,et al.The significance of radiolucent zones surrounding pedicle screws.Definition of screw loosening in spinal instrumentation.J Bone Joint Surg Br,2004,86:457-461.
[84]Tokuhashi Y,Matsuzaki H,Oda H,et al.Clinical course and significance of the clear zone around the pedicle screws in the lumbar degenerative disease. Spine,2008, 33:903-908.
[85]Dakhil-Jerew F, Jadeja H, Cohen A,et al.Inter-observer reliability of detecting dynesys pedicle screw using plain X-rays:a study on 50 post-operative patients. Eur Spine J,2009,18:1486-93.
[86]Block MS, Kent JN, Kay JF.Evaluation of hydroxylaptite-coated titanium dental implants in dogs.J Oral Maxillofac Surg,1987,45:601-607.
[87]Fini M,Giavaresi QGreggi T,et al.Biological assessment of the bone-screw interface after insertion of uncoated and hydroxyapatite-coated pedicular screws in the osteopenic sheep.J Biomed Mater Res A,2003,66:176-183.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |