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.

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.

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.

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.

Background Rigid fixation, represented by titanium rods, is a widely used fixation technique for lumbar fusion. However, this technique carries the risk of degeneration of adjacent segments. In recent years, the semi-rigid fixation technique represented by PEEK rods has gradually matured, and its effectiveness has been verified by numerous studies. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of these two fixation modalities in posterior lumbar fusion surgery. Methods Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. After data extraction and quality assessment of included studies, meta-analysis was performed using STATA 15.1 software. The protocol for this systematic review was registered on INPLASY (2021110049) and is available in full on the inplasy.com (https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2021-11-0049/). Results Fifteen relevant studies were finally included, including eight prospective studies and seven retrospective studies. The results of meta-analysis showed that in ODI (P = 0.000), JOA score (P = 0.017), VAS score for lower limb pain (P = 0.027), fusion rate of bone graft at week 12 (P = 0.001), fusion rate of bone graft at last follow-up (P = 0.028), there was a statistical difference between the two groups. The PEEK rod group was superior to the titanium rod group in the above aspects. While in VAS score for LBP (P = 0.396), there was no statistical difference between the two groups. Conclusion Both PEEK rods and titanium rods are effective fixation materials in lumbar fusion surgery. PEEK rods may be superior to titanium rods in improving postoperative function and improving bone graft fusion rates. However, given the limitations of this study, whether these conclusions are applicable needs further research.