SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2022
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.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications in Different Fusion Surgical Approaches for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Effects of dynamic stabilization and fusion on postoperative paraspinal muscle degeneration and lumbar function recovery.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- The value of fixed segment mobility in posterior dynamic stabilization: a single-center retrospective study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Does Bone Density Affect Outcomes in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Preoperative Hounsfield Units.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
- Article
- Long-term Outcome of Isobar TTL System for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Diseases.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease with a Novel Interlaminar Screw Elastic Spacer Technique: A Finite Element Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Clinical outcomes and prediction nomogram model for postoperative hemoglobin < 80 g/L in patients following primary lumbar interbody fusion surgery.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Isobar hybrid dynamic stabilization with posterolateral fusion in mild and moderate lumbar degenerative disease.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
- Predictive modeling of perioperative blood transfusion in lumbar posterior interbody fusion using machine learning.Frontiers in physiology · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe 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
methodWe 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/ ).
resultsOf 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.
conclusionsPosterior 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.
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.