Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2025 Feb 1;26(1):96.
doi: 10.1186/s12891-025-08333-4.

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

Yulu Sun  1 , Jianbin Guan  2 , Hao Chen  2 , Xiaojie Sun  2 , Kaitan Yang  2 , Qing Fang  3
Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Yulu Sun et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .

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.

Keywords: Adjacent segment degeneration; Dynamic stabilization; Isobar system; Lumbar degenerative diseases; Non-fusion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: We declare that the study has been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the institutional review board of Affiliated Hospital of Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine. All patients participated freely and with written informed consent to the study. Consent for publication: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The TTL system is on the left, and the EVO system is on the right [10]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A and B show LNPV measurements, and Both A and C are median sagittal plane of the MRI image. A. The h represents 1/2 of the height of the highest point in the middle of the nucleus pulposus in the median sagittal position of MRI. B. The a and b represent 1/2 of the anterior posterior diameter and width of the MRI cross-sectional ellipse, respectively. C. DHI was calculated using the MRI sagittal parameter de / cd
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Rom of surgical segment between the TTL and EVO groups
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Rom of upper segment between the TTL and EVO groups
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
A-Eanda-e. A 47-year-old male patient underwent Isobar TTL stabilization due to spinal stenosis in L4/5. He underwent fenestration decompression at L4-5, and instrumentation at L4–5 using the Isobar TTL. A-E The preoperative radiographs. A-B. Preoperative frontal and lateral x-ray of lumbar spine. C. The preoperative lumbar sagittal T2WI with fat suppression. The Pfirrman grading of L4/5 was grade III, and that of L3/4 was grade II. D. The preoperative lumbar axial T2WI of L3/4 nucleus pulpous, and the LNPV of L3/4 nucleus pulpous was 4.86 mm3. F-G. The pre-operative ROM of the surgical segment was 8.3° based on X-ray. a-e. The radiographs obtained 48 months after the operation. a-b. Postoperative frontal and lateral x-ray of lumbar spine. c. The lumbar sagittal T2WI. The Pfirrman grading of L4/5 was grade IV, and that of L3/4 was grade III. d--e. The lumbar axial T2WI of L3/4 nucleus pulpous, and the LNPV of L3/4 nucleus pulpous was 4.32 mm3. f-g. The post-operative ROM of the surgical segment was 2.4° based on X-ray
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
A-E and a-e. A 43-year-old male patient underwent Isobar EVO stabilization due to spinal stenosis in L4/5. He underwent fenestration decompression at L4-5, and instrumentation at L4–5 using the Isobar EVO. A-B. Preoperative frontal and lateral x-ray of lumbar spine. C-E The preoperative MRI scans. C. The preoperative lumbar sagittal T2WI with fat suppression. The Pfirrman grading of L4/5 was grade IV, and that of L3/4 was grade II. D. The preoperative lumbar axial T2WI of L3/4 nucleus pulpous, and the LNPV of L3/4 nucleus pulpous was 4.93 mm3. F-G. The pre-operative ROM of the surgical segment was 8.7° based on X-ray. a-e. The radiographs obtained 50 months after the operation. a-b. Postoperative frontal and lateral x-ray of lumbar spine. c. The lumbar sagittal T2WI. The Pfirrman grading of L4/5 was grade III, and that of L3/4 was grade II. d-e. The lumbar axial T2WI of L3/4 nucleus pulpous, and the LNPV of L3/4 nucleus pulpous was 4.71 mm3. f-g. The post-operative ROM of the surgical segment was 4.6° based on X-ray
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Preoperative and postoperative LNPV between the TTL and EVO groups
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
The correlation between ROM and LNP
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
The correlation between ROM of surgical segment and Pfrrimann of upper segment disc
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Michael AP, Weber MW, Delfino KR, et al. Adjacent-segment disease following two-level axial lumbar interbody fusion[J]. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(2):1–8. 10.3171/2019.2.SPINE18929. - PubMed
    1. Hao DJ, Zhang JN. Letter: prognostic factors for adjacent segment disease after L4-L5 lumbar fusion[J]. Neurosurgery. 2021;89(3):E167. 10.1093/neuros/nyab189. - PubMed
    1. Nessim A, Cho W, Yang XA, et al. Infra-adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion: an analysis of pelvic parameters[J]. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021;46(16):E888–92. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003998. - PubMed
    1. Li CH, Zhao H, Yu X. er al(2019). The research status and progress of impact of pre-existing adjacent segment pathology on adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion[J]. Orthopaedic Biomechanics Materials and Clinical Study,16(3):67–70. 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5972.2019.03.015
    1. Cho BY, Murovic J, Park KW, et al. Lumbar disc rehydration postimplantation,of a posterior dynamic stabilization system[J]. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(5):576–80. 10.3171/2010.5.SPINE08418. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources