Posterior Isobar non-fusion internal fixation system in repair of lumbar disc herniation: more advantages in restoring range of motion of lumbar spine

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2015.13.016

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The patients with lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion can be treated with internal fixation of posterior surgery way. We can choose the conventional posterior intervertebral fusion nail stick system internal fixation. Isobar non-fusion internal fixation system was used in recent years. As a kind of a strong internal fixation of lumbar posterior dynamic screw rod fixation system, it has been gradually applied in clinic, and has been one of patient’s treatment options.
OBJECTIVE: To compare and analyze the clinical efficacy of Isobar non-fusion internal fixation system and traditional intervertebral fusion nail rod system internal fixation operation method in treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
METHODS: From September 2011 to September 2012, 40 patients with lumbar disc herniation who were treated in the Department of Orthopedic, Changhai Hospital, the Second Military Medial University of Chinese PLA were enrolled in this study. They were equally assigned to the Isobar non-fusion internal fixation system group (Isobar group) and the traditional intervertebral fusion nail rod system internal fixation group (rigid internal fixation group) and subjected to corresponding treatments.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Surgery was successfully completed in patients of the two groups. These patients received at least 2 years of follow-up, no drop out. Compared with pre-fixation, low back pain Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index were improved significantly after fixation in both groups. Compared with the rigid internal fixation group, range of motion of lumbar spine was larger in the Isobar group. Low back
pain Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index were similar between the two groups. These results indicated that posterior Isolbar non-fusion internal fixation obtained identical outcomes as traditional treatment, and showed more advantages in range of motion of lumbar spine.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

全文链接：

Key words: Intervertebral Disk Displacement, Spinal Fusion, Lumbar Vertebrae, Comparative Effectiveness Research

CLC Number:

R318

Liu Yan-bin, Fu Qiang . Posterior Isobar non-fusion internal fixation system in repair of lumbar disc herniation: more advantages in restoring range of motion of lumbar spine[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2015, 19(13): 2051-2056.

Figures/Tables 3

References

[1] Hasankhani EG, Omidi-Kashani F. Posterior tension band wiring and instrumentation for thoracolumbar flexion-distraction injuries. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2014;22(1):88-91.
[2] Kwon YK, Jang JH, Lee CD, et al. Fracture of the L-4 vertebral body after use of a stand-alone interbody fusion device in degenerative spondylolisthesis for anterior L3-4 fixation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(6):653-656.
[3] Lequin MB, Verbaan D, Bouma GJ. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone Trabecular Metal cages for repeatedly recurrent lumbar disc herniation and back pain. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(6):617-622.
[4] Wang ST, Ma HL, Liu CL, et al. Is fusion necessary for surgically treated burst fractures of the thoracolumbar and lumbar spine?: a prospective, randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006; 31(23):2646-2652; discussion 2653.
[5] Upasani VV, Farnsworth CL, Tomlinson T, et al. Pedicle screw surface coatings improve fixation in nonfusion spinal constructs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(4):335-343.
[6] Chin KR, Boselli K, Cairone S. Lag screw fixation of remote bilateral pedicle fractures of the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae after a single gunshot wound: a case report and technical pearl. Spine J. 2010;10(2):136-140.
[7] Tezeren G, Bulut O, Tukenmez M, et al. Long segment instrumentation of thoracolumbar burst fracture: fusion versus nonfusion. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2009;22(2):107-112.
[8] Marino JF. Nonfusion short fixation of A3 burst fractures, loss of fixation attributable to polyaxial screw slippage? Spine J. 2010; 10(5):459-460; author reply 460.
[9] Zhang JD, Poffyn B, Sys G, et al. Are stand-alone cages sufficient for anterior lumbar interbody fusion? Orthop Surg. 2012;4(1):11-14.
[10] Mieritz RM, Bronfort G, Hartvigsen J. Regional lumbar motion and patient-rated outcomes: a secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2014; 37(9):628-640.
[11] Bydon M, Macki M, Abt NB, et al. The cost-effectiveness of interbody fusions versus posterolateral fusions in 137 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J. 2015;15(3):492-498.
[12] Ellingson AM, Nuckley DJ. Altered helical axis patterns of the lumbar spine indicate increased instability with disc degeneration. J Biomech. 2015;48(2):361-369.
[13] Holsgrove TP, Gill HS, Miles AW, et al. The dynamic, six-axis stiffness matrix testing of porcine spinal specimens. Spine J. 2015;15(1):176-184.
[14] Tian NF, Wu YS, Zhang XL, et al. Fusion versus nonfusion for surgically treated thoracolumbar burst fractures: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e63995.
[15] Stemper BD, Baisden JL, Yoganandan N, et al. Mechanical yield of the lumbar annulus: a possible contributor to instability: Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014; 21(4):608-613.
[16] Baaj AA, Gantwerker BR, Theodore N, er al. Radiographic assessment of thoracolumbar fractures based on axial zones. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(2):59-63.
[17] Tsitsopoulos PP, Serhan H, Voronov LI, et al. Would an anatomically shaped lumbar interbody cage provide better stability? An in vitro cadaveric biomechanical evaluation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25(8):E240-244.
[18] Pestka JM, Seitz S, Zustin J, et al. Paget disease of the spine: an evaluation of 101 patients with a histomorphometric analysis of 29 cases. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(5):999-1006.
[19] Cook DJ, Yeager MS, Cheng BC. Interpedicular travel in the evaluation of spinal implants: an application in posterior dynamic stabilization. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(11):923-931.
[20] Inoue N, Espinoza Orías AA. Biomechanics of intervertebral disk degeneration. Orthop Clin North Am. 2011;42(4):487-499, vii.
[21] Prasad KS, Gregson BA, Hargreaves G, et al. Inversion therapy in patients with pure single level lumbar discogenic disease: a pilot randomized trial. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(17):1473-1480.
[22] Kumar N, Kumar A, Siddharth MS, et al. Annulo-nucleoplasty using Disc-FX in the management of lumbar disc pathology: Early results. Int J Spine Surg. 2014;8:1-13.
[23] Rudolf L, Capobianco R2. Five-year clinical and radiographic outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion using triangular implants. Open Orthop J. 2014;8:375-383.
[24] Mobbs RJ, Maharaj M, Rao PJ. Clinical outcomes and fusion rates following anterior lumbar interbody fusion with bone graft substitute i-FACTOR, an anorganic bone matrix/P-15 composite. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(6):867-876.
[25] Maleci A, Sambale RD, Schiavone M, et al. Nonfusion stabilization of the degenerative lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15(2):151-158.
[26] Sears WR, Sergides IG, Kazemi N, et al. Incidence and prevalence of surgery at segments adjacent to a previous posterior lumbar arthrodesis. Spine J. 2011;11(1):11-20.
[27] Kim YM, Kim DS, Choi ES, et al. Nonfusion method in thoracolumbar and lumbar spinal fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(2):170-176.
[28] Di Silvestre M, Lolli F, Bakaloudis G, et al. Dynamic stabilization for degenerative lumbar scoliosis in elderly patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(2):227-234.
[29] Ding F, Jia Z, Wu Y, et al. Fusion-nonfusion hybrid construct versus anterior cervical hybrid decompression and fusion: a comparative study for 3-level cervical degenerative disc diseases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(23):1934-1942.
[30] Lee SE, Jahng TA, Kim HJ. Decompression and nonfusion dynamic stabilization for spinal stenosis with degenerative lumbar scoliosis: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014; 21(4):585-594.
[31] Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Brede E, et al. Lumbar surgery in work-related chronic low back pain: can a continuum of care enhance outcomes? Spine J. 2014;14(2):263-273.
[32] Zhang L, Shu X, Duan Y, et al. Effectiveness of ISOBAR TTL semi-rigid dynamic stabilization system in treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2012;26(9):1066-1070.
[33] Hrabálek L, Wanek T, Adamus M. Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis of the lumbosacral spine by decompression and dynamic transpedicular stabilisation. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2011;78(5):431-436.
[34] Li Z, Li F, Yu S, et al. Two-year follow-up results of the Isobar TTL Semi-Rigid Rod System for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. J Clin Neurosci. 2013;20(3):394-399.
[35] Barrey C, Perrin G, Champain S. Pedicle-Screw-Based Dynamic Systems and Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: Biomechanical and Clinical Experiences of Dynamic Fusion with Isobar TTL. ISRN Orthop. 2013;2013:183702.
[36] Chamoli U, Diwan AD, Tsafnat N. Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilizers for degenerative spine: in vitro biomechanical testing and clinical outcomes. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013. in press.
[37] Chamoli U, Diwan AD, Tsafnat N. Pedicle screw-based posterior dynamic stabilizers for degenerative spine: in vitro biomechanical testing and clinical outcomes. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014;102(9):3324-3340.
[38] Gao J, Zhao W, Zhang X, et al. MRI analysis of the ISOBAR TTL internal fixation system for the dynamic fixation of intervertebral discs: a comparison with rigid internal fixation. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:43.
[39] 徐海栋,付强.后路Isobar非融合内固定系统治疗腰椎退行性疾病疗效分析[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2013,21(11):1149-1152.
[40] Barz T, Lange J, Melloh M, et al. Histomorphometric and radiographical changes after lumbar implantation of the PEEK nonfusion interspinous device in the BB.4S rat model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(5):E263-269.
[41] Jiang SD, Chen JW, Jiang LS. Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(9):1259-1266.
[42] Tuli SM, Kapoor V, Jain AK, et al. Spinaplasty following lumbar laminectomy for multilevel lumbar spinal stenosis to prevent iatrogenic instability. Indian J Orthop. 2011;45(5):396-403.