Tiansheng Sun

Comparison of the Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization System and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease.

Background There have been few studies comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes between the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). The objective of this study is to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Dynesys and PLIF for lumbar degenerative disease. Methods Of 96 patients with lumbar degenerative disease included in this retrospectively analysis, 46 were treated with the Dynesys system and 50 underwent PLIF from July 2008 to March 2011. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated. We also evaluated the occurrence of radiographic and symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Results The mean follow-up time in the Dynesys group was 53.6 ± 5.3 months, while that in the PLIF group was 55.2 ± 6.8 months. At the final follow-up, the Oswestry disability index and visual analogue scale score were significantly improved in both groups. The range of motion (ROM) of stabilized segments in Dynesys group decreased from 7.1 ± 2.2° to 4.9 ± 2.2° (P < 0.05), while that of in PLIF group decreased from 7.3 ± 2.3° to 0° (P < 0.05). The ROM of the upper segments increased significantly in both groups at the final follow-up, the ROM was higher in the PLIF group. There were significantly more radiographic ASDs in the PLIF group than in the Dynesys group. The incidence of complications was comparable between groups. Conclusions Both Dynesys and PLIF can improve the clinical outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease. Compared to PLIF, Dynesys stabilization partially preserves the ROM of the stabilized segments, limits hypermobility in the upper adjacent segment, and may prevent the occurrence of ASD.

Percutaneous Nucleoplasty Using Coblation Technique for the Treatment of Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: 5-year Follow-up Results.

Background: This study evaluated the efficacy of percutaneous nucleoplasty using coblation technique for the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP), after 5 years of follow-up. Methods: From September 2004 to November 2006, 172 patients underwent percutaneous nucleoplasty for chronic LBP in our department. Forty-one of these patients were followed up for a mean period of 67 months. Nucleoplasty was performed at L3/4 in 1 patient; L4/5 in 25 patients; L5/S1 in 2 patients; L3/4 and L4/5 in 2 patients; L4/5 and L5/S1 in 7 patients; and L3/4, L4/5, and L5/S1 in 4 patients. Patients were assessed preoperatively and at 1 week, 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years postoperatively. Pain was graded using a 10-cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the percentage reduction in pain score was calculated at each postoperative time point. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was used to assess disability-related to lumbar spine degeneration, and patient satisfaction was assessed using the modified MacNab criteria. Results: There were significant differences among the preoperative, 1-week postoperative, and 3-year postoperative VAS and ODI scores, but not between the 3- and 5-year postoperative scores. There were no significant differences in age, sex, or preoperative symptoms between patients with effective and ineffective treatment, but there were significant differences in the number of levels treated, Pfirrmann grade of intervertebral disc degeneration, and provocative discography findings between these two groups. Excellent or good patient satisfaction was achieved in 87.9% of patients after 1 week, 72.4% after 1 year, 67.7% after 3 years, and 63.4% at the last follow-up. Conclusions: Although previously published short- and medium-term outcomes after percutaneous nucleoplasty appeared to be satisfactory, our long-term follow-up results show a significant decline in patient satisfaction over time. Percutaneous nucleoplasty is a safe and simple technique, with therapeutic effectiveness for the treatment of chronic LBP in selected patients. The technique is minimally invasive and can be used as part of a stepwise treatment plan for chronic LBP.

An expert consensus on the evaluation and treatment of acute thoracolumbar spine and spinal cord injury in China

This is an expert consensus on the evaluation and treatment of thoracolumbar spinal injury, established from February 2009 to July 2010. The expert consensus consists mainly of six parts with a total of 54 recommendations including the overview (one item); pre-hospital care (one item); evaluation and diagnosis (13 items); treatment (23 items); prevention and treatment of major complications (12 items); and rehabilitation (four items). This is the first time that Chinese experts have published a consensus on spine and spinal cord injury. The expert consensus was established based on Delphi methods, literature analysis, and clinical experiences. Each recommendation is supported by and was interpreted using multi-level evidences. The level of agreement with the recommendation among the panel members was assessed as either low, moderate, or strong. Each panel member was asked to indicate his or her level of agreement on a 5-point scale, with “1” corresponding to neutrality and “5” representing maximum agreement. Scores were aggregated across the panel members and an arithmetic mean was calculated. This mean score was then translated into low, moderate, or strong. After all of the votes were collected and calculated, the results showed no low-level recommendations, 10 moderate-level recommendations, and 44 strong-level recommendations. An expert consensus was reached and was recognized by Chinese spine surgeons. Wide-scale adoption of these recommendations is urgent in the management of acute thoracolumbar spine and spinal cord injury in a broader attempt to create a standard evaluation and treatment strategy for acute thoracolumbar spine and spinal cord injury in China.

Comparison of Functional and Radiological Outcomes Between Two Posterior Approaches in the Treatment of Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

Background: Posterior cervical decompression is an accepted treatment for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Each posterior technique has its own advantages and disadvantages. In the present study, we compared the functional and radiological outcomes of expansive hemilaminectomy and laminoplasty with mini titanium plate in the treatment of multilevel CSM. Methods: Forty-four patients with multilevel CSM treated with posterior cervical surgery in Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Beijing Army General Hospital from March 2011 to June 2012 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups by surgical procedure: Laminoplasty (Group L) and hemilaminectomy (Group H). Perioperative parameters including age, sex, duration of symptoms, operative duration, and intraoperative blood loss were recorded and compared. Spinal canal area, calculated using AutoCAD® software (Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA, USA), and neurological improvement, evaluated with Japanese Orthopedic Association score, were also compared. Results: Neurological improvement did not differ significantly between groups. Group H had a significantly shorter operative duration and significantly less blood loss. Mean expansion ratio was significantly greater in Group L (77.83 ± 6.41%) than in Group H (62.72 ± 3.86%) (P < 0.01). Conclusions: Both surgical approaches are safe and effective in treating multilevel CSM. Laminoplasty provides a greater degree of enlargement of the spinal canal, whereas expansive hemilaminectomy has the advantages of shorter operative duration and less intraoperative blood loss.

Does repair of spinal cord injury follow the evolutionary theory

Lower vertebrates, such as fish and amphibians, and higher vertebrates in embryonic development can acquire complete regeneration of complex body structures, including the spinal cord, an important part of the central nervous system. However, with species evolution and development, this regenerative capacity gradually weakens and even disappears, but the cellular and molecular mechanisms remain poorly understood. We explored the differences in mechanisms of spinal cord regeneration capability between lower and higher vertebrates, investigated differences in their cellular and molecular mechanisms and between the spinal cord structures of lower vertebrates and mammals, such as rat and monkey, to search for theoretical evidence and therapeutic targets for nerve regeneration in human spinal cord.

Long-Term Outcome of Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Background: Many clinical studies over the past decade have indicated positive outcomes for patients treated with Dynesys dynamic stabilization for lumbar degenerative disease. However, long-term outcomes of Dynesys for lumbar spinal stenosis are rarely reported. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term clinical and radiologic outcomes for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated with Dynesys stabilization. Methods: Thirty-eight patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were treated with Dynesys stabilization from July 2008 to March 2010. The minimal duration of follow-up was 72 months. The patients were divided into stenosis and spondylolisthesis groups according to degenerative spondylolisthesis. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS). Radiographic evaluations included range of motion (ROM) and the disc heights of stabilized segments and the upper adjacent segments. We also evaluated the occurrence of radiographic and symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Results: There were 23 patients in stenosis group and 15 patients in spondylolisthesis group. The ODI scores were significantly improved at the final follow-up evaluation, as compared to the baseline values (16.1 ± 5.7 vs. 57. 2 ± 14.2, t = 61.41, P < 0.01). The VAS scores for back and leg pain were significantly improved from 4.82 ± 0.89 and 4.04 ± 0.82 preoperatively to 0.93 ± 0.61 and 0.54 ± 0.51 postoperatively (t = 6.59, P < 0.01, and t = 5.91, P < 0.01, respectively). There were no differences between the two groups with respect to VAS and ODI scores. The ROM of stabilized segments decreased significantly from 7.8° ± 2.4° to 4.5° ± 1.5° (t = 7.18, P < 0.05), while the upper adjacent segments increased significantly from 8.3° ± 2.4° to 10.4° ± 2.4° (t = 2.87, P = 0.01). The change in disc height of stabilized segments was not significant (11.9 ± 2.1 preoperatively vs. 12.5 ± 1.5 postoperatively, t = 1.43, P = 0.15), whereas the decrease in disc height of the upper adjacent segments was significant (12.5 ± 2.0 preoperatively vs. 11.0 ± 1.7 postoperatively, t = 2.94, P = 0.01). The occurrence of radiographic and symptomatic ASD was 16% (6/38) and 3% (1/38), respectively. Conclusions: Decompression and Dynesys stabilization for lumbar stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis showed good long-term clinical and radiographic results. Lumbar stenosis with or without Grade I spondylolisthesis, particularly in patients <60 years of age with mild-to-moderate lumbar disc degeneration, would be one of the main indications for the Dynesys system.

Posterior Mediastinal, Intraspinal, Intradural, Intramedullary Lipoma through a Kovalevsky Canal in the Thoracic Spine.

Spinal lipomas are benign tumors that are usually divided into extradural and intradural types. In all, 60% are located intradurally and 40% are located extradurally. The most common spinal lipomas are known to be associated with dysraphism in the lumbosacral region.[1] We present a rare case of a posterior mediastinal, intraspinal, intradural, intramedullary lipoma through a Kovalevsky canal combined with the failure of multiple segments from T3 to T6 in the thoracic spine.

Therapeutic effects of NogoA vaccine and olfactory ensheathing glial cell implantation on acute spinal cord injury

License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php Journal of Neurorestoratology 2013:1 43–53 Journal of Neurorestoratology Dovepress