ArticleBMC surgery2020
Analysis of clinical effect and radiographic outcomes of Isobar TTL system for two-segment lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of iatrogenic alterations on adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar fusion surgery: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- 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.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of Lumbar Fusion Internal Fixation on Lumbar Disc Herniation in Young Patients: A Retrospective Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- Correlation of the single-segment dynamic stabilization with different segmental mobility and zygapophysial (facet) joint degeneration: a retrospective study in northern China.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Long-term Outcome of Isobar TTL System for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Diseases.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Isobar TTL System with Isthmic Bone Grafting and Pedicle Screw-Vertebral Plate Hook with Direct Repair of Defect for Lumbar Spondylolysis: A Matched-Pair Case Control Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- 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.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- 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.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- The effect of posterior lumbar dynamic fixation and intervertebral fusion on paraspinal muscles.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Selection of the fusion and fixation range in the intervertebral surgery to correct thoracolumbar and lumbar tuberculosis: a retrospective clinical study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNonfusion fixation is an effective way to treat lumbar degeneration. In the present study, we analyzed the clinical effects and radiographic outcomes of the Isobar TTL system used to treat two-segment lumbar degenerative disease.
methodForty-one patients diagnosed with two-segment lumbar degenerative disease underwent surgical implantation of the Isobar TTL dynamic stabilization system (n = 20) or a rigid system (n = 21) from January 2013 to June 2017. The mean follow-up time was 23.6 (range 15-37) months. Clinical results were evaluated with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), modified Macnab criteria, and the visual analog score (VAS). Radiographic evaluations included the height of the intervertebral space and the range of motion (ROM) of the treated and adjacent segments. The intervertebral disc signal was classified using the modified Pfirrmann grading system and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) system.
resultsThe clinical results, including the ODI and VAS, showed that there was significant improvement in the two groups after implantation and that the difference between the two groups was not significant. In addition, the clinical efficacy indicated by the modified Macnab criteria for the two groups was similar. Radiological outcomes included the height of the intervertebral space, lumbar mobility, and intervertebral disc signal. The height of the intervertebral space of the upper adjacent segment L2/3 in the rigid group was significantly lower than that in the Isobar TTL group at the last follow-up. Furthermore, the number of ROMs of the fixed-segment L3/4 in the Isobar TTL group was significantly less than that before implantation, suggesting that the fixed-segment ROMs in the Isobar TTL group were limited. In addition, the ROM of the upper adjacent segment L2/3 in the last follow-up of the rigid group increased significantly, while that of the Isobar TTL group did not change after implantation. Finally, the incidence of adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) was significantly greater in the rigid group than in the Isobar TTL group according to the UCLA system.
conclusionThe Isobar TTL system can be clinically effective for treating two-segment lumbar degenerative disease. Compared with rigid fixation, the Isobar TTL system yielded better radiographic outcomes and maintained the mobility of the treated segments with less impact on the proximal adjacent segment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.