FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4254286872> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4254286872 abstract "Abstract ObjectiveDynesys stabilization (DS) is utilized to preserve mobility at the instrumental segments and prevent adjacent segment pathology (ASP) in clinical practice. However, the advantages of DS method remain controversial. This meta-analysis was to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes between DS and instrumented fusion in patients with or without grade I spondylolisthesis at a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for potentially eligible articles. Clinical outcomes were assessed in terms of surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, in-hospital complications, VAS and ODI scores, screw loosening and breakage, and reoperation. Radiographic outcomes were assessed in terms of postoperative range of movement (ROM) and disc heigh. Moreover, adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) and adjacent segment disease (ASDis) were evaluated. Data are expressed as risk ratio or standardized mean difference with the associated 95% confidence intervals. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 15.1 software.ResultsFourteen studies with 1078 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The mean durations of follow-up ranged from 26.64 ± 5.16 months to 93.6 ± 16.5 months. The DS group was associated with significantly shorter surgical time, fewer intraoperative blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, less in-hospital complications, lower postoperative VAS scores for low-back and leg pain than the fusion group ( P < 0.05). Moreover, the ROM at the stabilized segments of the fusion group decreased significantly ( P < 0.01) and that at the adjacent segments increased significantly compared with those of the Dynesys group ( P < 0.01). Additionally, the Dynesys group showed significantly less ASDeg than the fusion group ( P < 0.01) but showed no significant advantage over the fusion group in terms of preventing ASDis ( P = 0.33). Furthermore, the Dynesys group was insignificantly different from the fusion group in terms of ODI, screw loosening, screw breakage, surgical reoperation, and disc heigh at stabilized and adjacent segments ( P > 0.05).ConclusionDynesys stabilization showed satisfactory clinical outcomes and provided additional benefits in preserving the motion at the stabilized segments and limiting the hypermobility at the adjacent segments compared with fusion method. Dynesys stabilization represented a complementary choice in the treatment of degenerative spinal lumbar disease with or without grade I spondylolisthesis." @default.
• W4254286872 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4254286872 creator A5022321740 @default.
• W4254286872 creator A5028971138 @default.
• W4254286872 creator A5040256399 @default.
• W4254286872 creator A5058810215 @default.
• W4254286872 creator A5061540311 @default.
• W4254286872 date "2020-12-18" @default.
• W4254286872 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W4254286872 title "Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Dynesys Dynamic Stabilization Versus Instrumented Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases With a Minimum Follow-Up Period of 2 Years: A Meta-Analysis" @default.
• W4254286872 doi "https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-129835/v1" @default.
• W4254286872 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W4254286872 type Work @default.
• W4254286872 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4254286872 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W4254286872 hasAuthorship W4254286872A5022321740 @default.
• W4254286872 hasAuthorship W4254286872A5028971138 @default.
• W4254286872 hasAuthorship W4254286872A5040256399 @default.
• W4254286872 hasAuthorship W4254286872A5058810215 @default.
• W4254286872 hasAuthorship W4254286872A5061540311 @default.
• W4254286872 hasBestOaLocation W42542868721 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConcept C2776623965 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConcept C2778051963 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConcept C2780375110 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConcept C36454342 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConcept C44575665 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConceptScore W4254286872C126322002 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConceptScore W4254286872C141071460 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConceptScore W4254286872C2776623965 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConceptScore W4254286872C2778051963 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConceptScore W4254286872C2780375110 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConceptScore W4254286872C36454342 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConceptScore W4254286872C44249647 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConceptScore W4254286872C44575665 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConceptScore W4254286872C71924100 @default.
• W4254286872 hasConceptScore W4254286872C95190672 @default.
• W4254286872 hasLocation W42542868721 @default.
• W4254286872 hasOpenAccess W4254286872 @default.
• W4254286872 hasPrimaryLocation W42542868721 @default.
• W4254286872 hasRelatedWork W10501112 @default.
• W4254286872 hasRelatedWork W11993909 @default.
• W4254286872 hasRelatedWork W12615478 @default.
• W4254286872 hasRelatedWork W1308099 @default.
• W4254286872 hasRelatedWork W15055169 @default.
• W4254286872 hasRelatedWork W1978356 @default.
• W4254286872 hasRelatedWork W20483974 @default.
• W4254286872 hasRelatedWork W20912335 @default.
• W4254286872 hasRelatedWork W5103937 @default.
• W4254286872 hasRelatedWork W6926338 @default.
• W4254286872 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4254286872 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4254286872 workType "article" @default.