Comparison of clinical and radiographic results between isobar posterior dynamic stabilization and posterior lumbar inter-body fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: A four-year retrospective study

Yang, Yi; Hong, Ying; Líu, Hao; Song, Yueming; Li, Tao; Liu, Limin; Gong, Qiyong

doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2015.06.003

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 201 relevant studies were obtained through a preliminary search, including 66 from PubMed, 12 from Ovid, 13 from EMBASE, 10 from Web of Science, 10 from MEDLINE, 46 from CNKI, 24 from VIP and 68 from WanFang. After eliminating duplicate studies, reading topics and abstracts and full-text re screening, 7 RCT studies [ 8 – 14 ] with 394 patients were finally included. The literature screening flow diagram is shown in Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six studies [ 8 – 11 , 13 , 14 ] reported the intraoperative bleeding of the two methods during the operation. The results of meta-analysis of random effect model showed that there was a significant difference in the intraoperative bleeding between isobar group and PLIF Group [MD = − 124.57; 95% CI (− 200.48, − 48.65); P = 0.001] (Table 2 , Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of posterior lumbar nonfusion surgery with isobar devices versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery on clinical and radiological features in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis

Guan

Liu

et al. 2022

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy of posterior lumbar isobar nonfusion with isobar devices versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs). Materials and method We performed a literature review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Cochrane methodology. The analysis included a Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation assessments, Jadad Quality Score evaluations, and Risk of Bias in Randomized Studies of Interventions assessments. The PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, CNKI, VIP and WanFang databases were searched to collect and compare relevant randomized controlled trials and cohort studies of isobar nonfusion and PLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. The retrieval time was from database inception to June 2021. Two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the included studies. Outcome measures of interest included low back pain, disability, and radiological features. The protocol for this systematic review was registered on INPLASY (2021110059) and is available in full on inplasy.com (https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-11-0059/). Results Of the 7 RCTs, 394 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis results showed that isobar nonfusion surgery shortened the surgical duration (P = 0.03), reducing intraoperative bleeding (P = 0.001), retained the ROM of surgical segment (P < 0.00001) and the ROM of the lumbar spine (P < 0.00001), and reduced the incidence of ASD (P = 0.0001). However, no significant difference in the postoperative ODI index (P = 0.81), VAS score of LBP (P = 0.59, VAS score of lower limb pain (P = 0.05, and JOA score (P = 0.27) was noted. Conclusions Posterior lumbar nonfusion surgery with isobar devices is superior to PLIF in shortening the surgical duration, reducing intraoperative bleeding, retaining the ROM of surgical segments and the lumbar spine to a certain extent, and preventing ASD. Given the possible publication bias, we recommend further large-scale studies.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of posterior lumbar nonfusion surgery with isobar devices versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery on clinical and radiological features in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis

Guan

Liu

et al. 2022

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Motion-preservation procedures, including lumbar disc arthroplasty and dynamic posterior instrumentation, have been extensively studied with the rationale that they decrease the rigid fixation that leads to adjacent level intensification of stress forces. 40 …”

Section: Decreasing the Risk Of Developing Asd: Motion-preserving Procedures As An Alternative To Fusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical risk factors associated with the development of adjacent segment pathology in the lumbar spine

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adjacent segment pathology (ASP) is a major cause of disability, and the recognition of the surgical risk factors associated with the development of this condition is essential for its prevention. Different surgical approaches, from decompression without fusion to non-instrumented and instrumented fusion, have distinct contributions to the development of ASP. Although motion-preservation procedures could reduce the prevalence of ASP, these are also associated with a higher percentage of complications. Several risk factors associated with previous surgery, namely the chosen surgical approach and anatomical dissection, the choice of interbody fusion, the increment and length of the fusion, and the restoration of sagittal alignment, may influence the development of ASP. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:966-972. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210050

show abstract

“…2 However, fusion is not always perfect to some extent since the stabilization of the affected segment may lead to the loss of mobility as a functional spinal unit and acceleration of adjacent segment degeneration. 3 Simple open lumbar discectomy (OLD) and transforaminal percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) was the other effective surgical procedures for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). 4 However, early literature have reported the increase in instability after simple OLD resulted in recurrence of spinal canal stenosis and deterioration of operative results [5][6][7] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combination of Intraspine Interlaminar Device With Lumbar Discectomy in Patients With L5/S1 Disc Herniation

Feng

Fan

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. It is commonly recognized that interspinous spacers were not generally suitable for the application in L5-S1 level due to the short S1 spinous process.In this retrospective study, the feasibility and validity of the IntraSpine interlaminar device in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation on the L5/S1 level were evaluated.Methods. During the January 2018 and December 2018, a total of 30 patients, who were hospitalized in our hospital due to lumbar disc herniation (LDH) on the L5/S1 level, were included in the current study. The clinical symptoms before surgery, post-operation (3 days after surgery), 6 months after surgery, 12 months after surgery, and final follow-up were assessed using the back and leg visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI). Sagittal diameter of the lumbar spinal canal (SD), posterior disc height (PDH), left and right foramina height (LFH and RFH), left and right foramina width (LFW and RFW) were measured by sagittal reconstructions of CT scans. The range of motion (ROM) of L5-S1 level was estimated by lumbar dynamic X-ray images.Results. The back VAS, leg VAS, ODI, were significantly improved after surgery(P<0.05). The SD, PHD, LFH, RFH, LFW, and RFW after the operation and in the follow-up period were statistically different from those before surgery (P<0.05). The ROM of L5/S1 level at final follow-up was not statistically different from that before surgery (P = 0.299). 93.3% of patients demonstrated successful outcomes.Conclusions. The combination of IntraSpine interlaminar device with lumbar discectomy is an effective minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of L5/S1 disc herniation, which can delay and prevent the reduction of the disc height after discectomy in L5/S1 segment.

show abstract

Comparison of clinical and radiographic results between isobar posterior dynamic stabilization and posterior lumbar inter-body fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: A four-year retrospective study

Cited by 14 publications

References 36 publications

Effects of posterior lumbar nonfusion surgery with isobar devices versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery on clinical and radiological features in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis

Effects of posterior lumbar nonfusion surgery with isobar devices versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery on clinical and radiological features in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis

Surgical risk factors associated with the development of adjacent segment pathology in the lumbar spine

Combination of Intraspine Interlaminar Device With Lumbar Discectomy in Patients With L5/S1 Disc Herniation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About