ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
The value of fixed segment mobility in posterior dynamic stabilization: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers 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
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsAt 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).
conclusionCompared 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.
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.