The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: LSS is an extremely common pathology that affects more than 102 million people worldwide every year.
It is most often linked to the combination of a disk space narrowing (loss of height and bulging within the canal), a hypertrophy of the yellow ligament and of the joint capsules and also a bone overgrowth by the posterior vertebral joints. This may be associated with Grade I spondylolisthesis.
This pathology often extends over several levels, frequently two (L5S1, L4L5 or L4L5, L3L4) sometimes more. A relatively homogeneous group of patients falls within the group of stenosis, from S1 to L2, without significant deviation (scoliosis or cyphosis type).
A wide variety of different surgical techniques are used to treat patients with LSS and patients who have symptoms despite well-conducted medical treatment. Decompressive laminectomy may prove to be insufficient when several levels are affected and also due to the fears of instability induced by the gesture itself (the joint hypertrophy responsible for nerve root compression is also a stabilizing element). Therefore, the scientific community usually associates a gesture of stabilization with the gesture of decompression.
The choice of stabilizing means is discussed without any conclusive answer provided by any controlled study. This question accounts for the subject of this study.
Two alternatives are discussed:
- The current gold standard is to practice rigid stabilization through bolted fusion, with or without inter somatic cage, despite the fact that it causes an excessive rigidification of the mobile segment, therefore responsible for the acceleration of the degeneration of the upper level.
- Soft stabilization system with pedicular screwing B-Dyn type. It stabilizes the arthrodesis while maintaining some mobility. This partial preservation of mobility could slow down or prevent the upper level's degradation.
Based on the judgment from the dynamic profile images, the devices, some of which are approved in the USA claim to favor fusion while providing no information on the mobility of the upper level in their studies.
The aim of this randomized and prospective comparative study would not only be to establish the non-inferiority of the procedure under study, versus conventional fusion (with or without cage) on the degree of functional disability after surgery, but also to demonstrate the significantly higher preservation of the upper level's mobility when assembling.
First inclusion : May 2020
Inclusion period : 56 months
Follow up of the last patient: December 2029
Analysis and results: June 2030