Cargando…

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

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, howeve...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guan, Jianbin, Liu, Tao, Feng, Ningning, Jiang, Guozheng, Li, Wenhao, Yang, Kaitan, Zhao, He, Yang, Yongdong, Yu, Xing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9675160/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36401203
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05913-6
_version_ 1784833309709172736
author Guan, Jianbin
Liu, Tao
Feng, Ningning
Jiang, Guozheng
Li, Wenhao
Yang, Kaitan
Zhao, He
Yang, Yongdong
Yu, Xing
author_facet Guan, Jianbin
Liu, Tao
Feng, Ningning
Jiang, Guozheng
Li, Wenhao
Yang, Kaitan
Zhao, He
Yang, Yongdong
Yu, Xing
author_sort Guan, Jianbin
collection PubMed
description 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 (VAS(back)) and visual analog scale for the leg pain (VAS(leg)) 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9675160
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96751602022-11-20 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 Guan, Jianbin Liu, Tao Feng, Ningning Jiang, Guozheng Li, Wenhao Yang, Kaitan Zhao, He Yang, Yongdong Yu, Xing BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research 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 (VAS(back)) and visual analog scale for the leg pain (VAS(leg)) 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. BioMed Central 2022-11-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9675160/ /pubmed/36401203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05913-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Guan, Jianbin
Liu, Tao
Feng, Ningning
Jiang, Guozheng
Li, Wenhao
Yang, Kaitan
Zhao, He
Yang, Yongdong
Yu, Xing
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9675160/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36401203
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05913-6
work_keys_str_mv AT guanjianbin comparisonbetweensinglesegmentisobarevodynamicstabilizationandisobarttldynamicstabilizationinthetreatmentoflumbardegenerativediseasesasinglecenterretrospectivestudyover4years
AT liutao comparisonbetweensinglesegmentisobarevodynamicstabilizationandisobarttldynamicstabilizationinthetreatmentoflumbardegenerativediseasesasinglecenterretrospectivestudyover4years
AT fengningning comparisonbetweensinglesegmentisobarevodynamicstabilizationandisobarttldynamicstabilizationinthetreatmentoflumbardegenerativediseasesasinglecenterretrospectivestudyover4years
AT jiangguozheng comparisonbetweensinglesegmentisobarevodynamicstabilizationandisobarttldynamicstabilizationinthetreatmentoflumbardegenerativediseasesasinglecenterretrospectivestudyover4years
AT liwenhao comparisonbetweensinglesegmentisobarevodynamicstabilizationandisobarttldynamicstabilizationinthetreatmentoflumbardegenerativediseasesasinglecenterretrospectivestudyover4years
AT yangkaitan comparisonbetweensinglesegmentisobarevodynamicstabilizationandisobarttldynamicstabilizationinthetreatmentoflumbardegenerativediseasesasinglecenterretrospectivestudyover4years
AT zhaohe comparisonbetweensinglesegmentisobarevodynamicstabilizationandisobarttldynamicstabilizationinthetreatmentoflumbardegenerativediseasesasinglecenterretrospectivestudyover4years
AT yangyongdong comparisonbetweensinglesegmentisobarevodynamicstabilizationandisobarttldynamicstabilizationinthetreatmentoflumbardegenerativediseasesasinglecenterretrospectivestudyover4years
AT yuxing comparisonbetweensinglesegmentisobarevodynamicstabilizationandisobarttldynamicstabilizationinthetreatmentoflumbardegenerativediseasesasinglecenterretrospectivestudyover4years