ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Correlation of the single-segment dynamic stabilization with different segmental mobility and zygapophysial (facet) joint degeneration: a retrospective study in northern China.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dynamic versus rigid lumbar fixation: A multimodal comparison of paraspinal muscle morphology, electromyography, and functional outcomes.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of single-segment posterior decompression combined with two different non-fusion dynamic stabilization systems, Isobar EVO and Isobar TTL, in the context of facet joint degeneration and segmental mobility.
methodA retrospective study was conducted on 47 patients who underwent single-segment surgery at the L4/5 level using either the Isobar EVO (n = 23) or Isobar TTL (n = 24) systems. We assessed facet joint degeneration on both sides of the fixed (L3/4, L4/5) and superior adjacent (L2/3) segments using the Fujiwara MRI grading system. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months postoperatively.
resultBoth groups exhibited significant facet joint degeneration at the fixed segments (L3/4 and L4/5) at 24 months. The TTL group also showed significant degeneration at the superior adjacent segment (L2/3), whereas the EVO group did not. Restoration of lumbar lordosis was significantly better in the EVO group. Pain and disability scores improved more in the EVO group than in the TTL group at both 12 and 24 months postoperatively.
conclusionThe Isobar EVO system, with its enhanced mobility, may delay facet joint degeneration in the superior adjacent segment compared to the Isobar TTL system. However, both systems result in degeneration at the fixed segment, indicating a need for further improvements to mimic the natural biomechanics of the spine more closely.
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.