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

et al. 2023

Self Cite

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using the Isobar TTL system and posterolateral fusion in a two-segment hybrid fixation approach, combined with spinal decompression, for treating mild and moderate lumbar degenerative disease. Specifically, we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach for managing two-segment mild and moderate lumbar degenerative disease, and to determine whether it could provide a safe and reliable alternative to traditional surgical methods. Methods This retrospective study included 45 consecutive patients with two-level lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis, 24 of whom underwent the TTL system and posterolateral fusion combined (TTL group), and 21 of whom underwent posterolateral fusion alone (Rigid group). The surgical segment, admission diagnosis, operation time, and intraoperative bleeding were recorded separately for the two groups of patients. Imaging studies included pre- and postoperative radiography, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography. The clinical outcomes were measured by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. Results All patients completed the surgery successfully with a mean follow-up of 56.09 months. The operative time and intraoperative bleeding were lower in the TTL group than in the Rigid group (p < 0.05). All patients showed significant improvements in clinical outcomes, including VAS for back and leg pain, and ODI scores (p < 0.05). ODI scores, the TTL group was better than the Rigid group at 1 year after surgery and at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). Postoperative surgical segment range of motion (ROM) decreased in both groups (p < 0.05). The postoperative ROM of the upper adjacent segment increased in both groups and was significantly higher in both groups at the last follow-up compared with the preoperative period (p < 0.05), and the superior adjacent segment rom of the TTL group was lower than the Rigid group (p < 0.05). The modified Pfrrmann classification of the superior adjacent segment was significantly increased in both groups at the last follow-up (p < 0.05). And in the TTL group, ROM, DH, and modified Pfrrmann grading of dynamic segment outperformed fusion segments. According to the UCLA classification, the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) was 4.2% in the TTL group and 23.8% in the Rigid group, and the incidence of ASD was lower in the TTL group than in the Rigid group (P < 0.05). Conclusion The Isobar TTL System was utilized in two-level lumbar hybrid surgery, resulting in no evident indications of lumbar instability being detected on X-rays captured at a minimum of 4 years after the operation, while retaining partial range of motion of the surgical segment. The general clinical efficacy is equivalent to titanium rod fusion surgery, presenting an alternative treatment for individuals with mild and moderate lumbar degenerative disease.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Isobar hybrid dynamic stabilization with posterolateral fusion in mild and moderate lumbar degenerative disease

et al. 2023

Self Cite

“…The clinical comparison between Isobar dynamic fixation nonfusion and lumbar fusion is a valid measure of clinical efficacy of the Isobar dynamic fixation system. We previously compared the clinical and imaging outcomes of TTL dynamic fixation nonfusion and fusion by meta-analysis [ 18 ]. According to the results of this meta-analysis, we found that TTL non-fusion can effectively improve the VAS score and ODI index when compared to fusion, and it has significant advantages in terms of reducing operative time and intraoperative bleeding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between single-segment Isobar EVO dynamic stabilization and Isobar TTL dynamic stabilization in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a single center retrospective study over 4 years

Feng

et al. 2022

Self Cite

Objective Posterior instrumented fusion is the most widely accepted surgical treatment for spinal stenosis and disc herniation. However, fusion can affect daily activities due to lumbar stiffness. In recent years, dynamic stabilization has been introduced to overcome the drawbacks of fusion, however, it is inconclusive whether dynamic stabilization requires the maintenance of a level of activity that is closer to the physiological state of activity for better clinical efficacy. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of dynamic stabilization with different levels of activity (Isobar EVO and TTL) in the treatment of spinal stenosis and disc herniation. Methods This study retrospectively reviewed 80 consecutive patients with lumbar degenerative diseases who were undergoing surgical treatment between March 2014 and July 2018. 41 patients (EVO group) and 39 patients (TTL group) underwent fenestrated decompression with Isobar EVO stabilization and Isobar TTL stabilization, respectively. Clinical outcomes, radiographic data, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Results At an average follow-up of 52.23 ± 2.97 months, there were no significant differences in the oswestry disability index (ODI) (P > 0.05). The visual analog scale for back pain (VASback) and visual analog scale for the leg pain (VASleg) of the EVO group were lower compared with the TTL group (P < 0.05). The range of motion (ROM) of operated segments were significantly higher in the EVO group as compared to the TTL group (P < 0.05). The intervertebral space height (ISH) of upper adjacent segments were significantly higher in the EVO group as compared to the TTL group (P < 0.05). The overall complications were less in the EVO group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusion Both Isobar EVO dynamic stabilization and TTL dynamic stabilization can improve clinical outcomes of patients with spinal stenosis and disc herniation. Isobar EVO has advantages over Isobar TTL in terms of improving low back and leg pain, maintaining mobility of the operated segment, and preventing further degeneration of the upper adjacent segment.

“…Since the 1980s, non-fusion stabilization systems such as the posterior lumbar interspinous spine bracing device, interspinous joint device, and posterior transforaminal dynamic internal fixation have been improved and evolved. Some clinicians have also used the Isobar dynamic stabilization system to improve clinical outcomes in non-fusion and hybrid technology [ 37 – 39 ]. This system provides spinal stability while preserving a certain degree of mobility of the operated segment, and the load transfer center of the surgical segment is close to the anterior-middle column of the spine, which results in less compressive stress than traditional rigid fixation devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The paravertebral muscles are an important group of muscles for maintaining normal trunk posture and spinal stability, although it has been shown in anatomy and physiology that the multifidus muscle (MM) is the most important for maintaining lumbar joint stability, the erector spinae (ES), and the psoas (PS) and quadratus lumborum (QL) are also indispensable for maintaining lumbar spine stability [ 39 ]. Through our clinical observations and the results of most studies [ 23 , 40 , 41 ], fat infiltration in patients with lumbar degeneration is mainly found in MM and ES.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation between surgical segment mobility and paravertebral muscle fatty infiltration of upper adjacent segment in single-segment LDD patients: retrospective study at a minimum 2 years’ follow-up

Zhao

et al. 2023

Self Cite

Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between surgical segment mobility and fatty infiltration of the adjacent segment paravertebral muscles in patients with single-segment lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) who underwent decompression with fusion or dynamic stabilization. Methods Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent lumbar decompression combined with titanium rod fixation intertransverse fusion (PITF group), Isobar TTL dynamic stabilization (TTL group) or Isobar EVO dynamic stabilization (EVO group) for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease, from March 2012 to July 2018. The preoperative and final follow-up clinical indexes C-LDSI and the measured imaging indexes (range of motion of the surgical segment and the upper adjacent segment, and Goutallier grade of the upper adjacent segment) were counted, and the differences between the preoperative and final follow-up indexes were compared. Results According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 68 patients were included in this study, 21 in the PITF group, 24 in the TTL group, and 23 in the EVO group. At the final follow-up, the C-LSDI score had significantly higher in the PITF group than the TTL and EVO groups, and the C-LSDI score was a very strongly negatively correlated with ROM of surgical segment (r=-0.7968, p < 0.001). There was a strong negative correlation between surgical segment and upper adjacent segment mobility (r = -0.6959, p < 0.001). And there was a very strong negative correlation between ROM of surgical segment and upper adjacent segment paravertebral muscle Goutallier classification (r = -0.8092, p < 0.001), whereas the ROM of the upper adjacent segment was strong positive correlated with the Goutallier classification (r = 0.6703, P < 0.001). Conclusion Compared with decompression combined with rigid fusion, decompression combined with dynamic fixation for single-segment lumbar degenerative disease can significantly reduce postoperative low back stiffness. And a certain range of increased mobility of the dynamic stabilization device can effectively reduce the compensatory mobility of the upper adjacent segment and slow down the fatty infiltration of the paravertebral muscle in the adjacent segment.