The value of fixed segment mobility in posterior dynamic stabilization: a single-center retrospective study

Abstract Purpose This study aims to compare the effects of two generations of the Isobar dynamic fixation system—Isobar TTL (first-generation, less mobile) and Isobar EVO (second-generation, more mobile)—on the surgical and adjacent intervertebral disc segments, based on MRI findings. Methods A retr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yulu Sun, Jianbin Guan, Hao Chen, Xiaojie Sun, Kaitan Yang, Qing Fang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-02-01
Series:BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-025-08333-4
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832572075947065344
author Yulu Sun
Jianbin Guan
Hao Chen
Xiaojie Sun
Kaitan Yang
Qing Fang
author_facet Yulu Sun
Jianbin Guan
Hao Chen
Xiaojie Sun
Kaitan Yang
Qing Fang
author_sort Yulu Sun
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Purpose This study aims to compare the effects of two generations of the Isobar dynamic fixation system—Isobar TTL (first-generation, less mobile) and Isobar EVO (second-generation, more mobile)—on the surgical and adjacent intervertebral disc segments, based on MRI findings. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 29 patients treated with fenestrated decompression and Isobar EVO stabilization and 34 patients treated with fenestrated decompression and Isobar TTL stabilization. Clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters, including the disc height index (DHI) and range of motion (ROM) of the surgical and upper adjacent segments, lateral neural foraminal protrusion value (LNPV) of the upper adjacent segment, and Pfirrmann grading of disc degeneration, were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Results At the 48-month follow-up, no significant differences in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were observed between the two groups (P > 0.01). The EVO group demonstrated significantly higher surgical segment DHI and ROM compared to the TTL group (P < 0.01). Meanwhile, the upper adjacent segment ROM was significantly lower in the EVO group compared to the TTL group at the final follow-up (P < 0.01). Additionally, the upper adjacent segment LNPV was larger in the EVO group than in the TTL group (P < 0.01). Pfirrmann grading revealed greater degeneration in surgical segments treated with TTL compared to EVO (P = 0.008). Conclusion Compared to the first-generation, less mobile Isobar TTL, the second-generation, more mobile Isobar EVO offers superior preservation of the surgical segment and slows the progression of degeneration in the upper adjacent segments. These findings highlight the benefits of greater mobility in posterior dynamic stabilization devices.
format Article
id doaj-art-74bdcc3281484c7ab8c48c6beb4d4ccf
institution Kabale University
issn 1471-2474
language English
publishDate 2025-02-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
spelling doaj-art-74bdcc3281484c7ab8c48c6beb4d4ccf2025-02-02T12:05:28ZengBMCBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders1471-24742025-02-0126111210.1186/s12891-025-08333-4The value of fixed segment mobility in posterior dynamic stabilization: a single-center retrospective studyYulu Sun0Jianbin Guan1Hao Chen2Xiaojie Sun3Kaitan Yang4Qing Fang5Yangling Demonstration Zone HospitalHonghui-hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityHonghui-hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityHonghui-hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityHonghui-hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityHonghui-hospital, Xi’an Jiaotong UniversityAbstract Purpose This study aims to compare the effects of two generations of the Isobar dynamic fixation system—Isobar TTL (first-generation, less mobile) and Isobar EVO (second-generation, more mobile)—on the surgical and adjacent intervertebral disc segments, based on MRI findings. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 29 patients treated with fenestrated decompression and Isobar EVO stabilization and 34 patients treated with fenestrated decompression and Isobar TTL stabilization. Clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters, including the disc height index (DHI) and range of motion (ROM) of the surgical and upper adjacent segments, lateral neural foraminal protrusion value (LNPV) of the upper adjacent segment, and Pfirrmann grading of disc degeneration, were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Results At the 48-month follow-up, no significant differences in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were observed between the two groups (P > 0.01). The EVO group demonstrated significantly higher surgical segment DHI and ROM compared to the TTL group (P < 0.01). Meanwhile, the upper adjacent segment ROM was significantly lower in the EVO group compared to the TTL group at the final follow-up (P < 0.01). Additionally, the upper adjacent segment LNPV was larger in the EVO group than in the TTL group (P < 0.01). Pfirrmann grading revealed greater degeneration in surgical segments treated with TTL compared to EVO (P = 0.008). Conclusion Compared to the first-generation, less mobile Isobar TTL, the second-generation, more mobile Isobar EVO offers superior preservation of the surgical segment and slows the progression of degeneration in the upper adjacent segments. These findings highlight the benefits of greater mobility in posterior dynamic stabilization devices.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-025-08333-4Dynamic stabilizationNon-fusionLumbar degenerative diseasesAdjacent segment degenerationIsobar system
spellingShingle Yulu Sun
Jianbin Guan
Hao Chen
Xiaojie Sun
Kaitan Yang
Qing Fang
The value of fixed segment mobility in posterior dynamic stabilization: a single-center retrospective study
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Dynamic stabilization
Non-fusion
Lumbar degenerative diseases
Adjacent segment degeneration
Isobar system
title The value of fixed segment mobility in posterior dynamic stabilization: a single-center retrospective study
title_full The value of fixed segment mobility in posterior dynamic stabilization: a single-center retrospective study
title_fullStr The value of fixed segment mobility in posterior dynamic stabilization: a single-center retrospective study
title_full_unstemmed The value of fixed segment mobility in posterior dynamic stabilization: a single-center retrospective study
title_short The value of fixed segment mobility in posterior dynamic stabilization: a single-center retrospective study
title_sort value of fixed segment mobility in posterior dynamic stabilization a single center retrospective study
topic Dynamic stabilization
Non-fusion
Lumbar degenerative diseases
Adjacent segment degeneration
Isobar system
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-025-08333-4
work_keys_str_mv AT yulusun thevalueoffixedsegmentmobilityinposteriordynamicstabilizationasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT jianbinguan thevalueoffixedsegmentmobilityinposteriordynamicstabilizationasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT haochen thevalueoffixedsegmentmobilityinposteriordynamicstabilizationasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT xiaojiesun thevalueoffixedsegmentmobilityinposteriordynamicstabilizationasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT kaitanyang thevalueoffixedsegmentmobilityinposteriordynamicstabilizationasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT qingfang thevalueoffixedsegmentmobilityinposteriordynamicstabilizationasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT yulusun valueoffixedsegmentmobilityinposteriordynamicstabilizationasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT jianbinguan valueoffixedsegmentmobilityinposteriordynamicstabilizationasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT haochen valueoffixedsegmentmobilityinposteriordynamicstabilizationasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT xiaojiesun valueoffixedsegmentmobilityinposteriordynamicstabilizationasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT kaitanyang valueoffixedsegmentmobilityinposteriordynamicstabilizationasinglecenterretrospectivestudy
AT qingfang valueoffixedsegmentmobilityinposteriordynamicstabilizationasinglecenterretrospectivestudy