Long-term Outcome of Isobar TTL System for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Diseases

Abstract

Objective: The Isobar TTL dynamic fixation system has demonstrated favorable outcomes in the short-term treatment of lumbar degenerative disc diseases (LDDs). However, there is a paucity of extensive research on the long-term effects of this system on LDDs. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiological outcomes of patients with LDDs who underwent treatment utilizing the Isobar TTL dynamic fixation system.

Methods: The study analyzed the outcomes of 40 patients with LDDs who underwent posterior lumbar decompression and received single-segment Isobar TTL dynamic internal fixation at our hospital between June 2010 and December 2016. The evaluation of clinical therapeutic effect involved assessing postoperative pain levels using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI), both before surgery, 3 months after, and the final follow-up. To determine the preservation of functional motion in dynamically stable segments, we measured the range of motion (ROM) and disc height of stabilized and adjacent segments preoperatively and during the final follow-up. Additionally, we investigated the occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD).

Results: Forty patients were evaluated, with an average age of 44.65 years and an average follow-up period of 79.37 months. Fourteen patients belonged to the spondylolisthesis group, while the remaining 26 were categorized under the stenosis or herniated disc group. The preoperative ROM of the stabilized segment exhibited a significant reduction from 8.15° ± 2.77° to 5.00° ± 1.82° at the final follow-up (p < 0.001). In contrast, there was a slight elevation in the ROM of the adjacent segment during the final follow-up, increasing from 7.68° ± 2.25° before surgery to 9.36° ± 1.98° (p < 0.001). The intervertebral space height (IH) in the stabilized segment exhibited a significant increase from 10.56 ± 1.99 mm before surgery to 11.39 ± 1.90 mm at the one-week postoperative follow-up (p < 0.001). Conversely, there was a notable decrease in the IH of the adjacent segment from 11.09 ± 1.82 mm preoperatively to 10.86 ± 1.79 mm at the one-week follow-up after surgery (p < 0.001). The incidence of ASD was 15% (6/40) after an average follow-up period of 79.37 months, with a rate of 15.38% (4/26) in the stenosis or herniated disc group and 14.29% (2/14) in the spondylolisthesis group; however, no statistically significant difference was observed in the occurrence of ASD among these groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: The Isobar TTL dynamic fixation system is an effective treatment for LDDs, improving pain relief, quality of life (QoL) and maintaining stabilized segmental motion. It has demonstrated excellent long-term clinical and radiographic results.

Keywords

Adjacent segment degeneration / Dynesys / Isobar TTL / lumbar degenerative disc diseases / lumbar spondylolisthesis

References

[1] MengB, BunchJ, BurtonD, Wang J. Lumbar interbody fusion: recent advances in surgical techniques and bone healing strategies. Eur Spine J. 2021;30:22–33.

[2] HijjiFY, NarainAS, BohlDD, Ahn J, LongWW, DiBattistaJV, et al. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of complication rates. Spine J. 2017;17:1412–1419.

[3] WangsawatwongP, SawaAGU, de Andrada PereiraB, LehrmanJN, O'Neill LK, TurnerJD, et al. Adjacent-segment effects of lumbar cortical screw-rod fixation versus pedicle screw-rod fixation with and without interbody support. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021;35:263–269.

[4] DuanPG, Mummaneni PV, GuinnJMV, RiveraJ, BervenSH, ChouD. Is the Goutallier grade of multifidus fat infiltration associated with adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion? J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;34:190–195.

[5] MoreauPE, Ferrero E, RiouallonG, LenoirT, GuiguiP. Radiologic adjacent segment degeneration 2 years after lumbar fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016;102:759–763.

[6] TsujiT, Watanabe K, HosoganeN, FujitaN, IshiiK, ChibaK, et al. Risk factors of radiological adjacent disc degeneration with lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. J Orthop Sci. 2016;21:133–137.

[7] MeyerB, Thomé C, VajkoczyP, KehlV, DodelR, RingelF. Lumbar dynamic pedicle-based stabilization versus fusion in degenerative disease: a multicenter, double-blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2022;37:1–10.

[8] SchauvliegeH, Du Bois M, VerlooyJ. Implant failure following pedicle based dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine. Acta Orthop Belg. 2021;87:191–196.

[9] LeeCH, JahngTA, HyunSJ, Kim CH, ParkSB, KimKJ, et al. Dynamic stabilization using the Dynesys system versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal disease: a clinical and radiological outcomes-based meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;40:E7.

[10] ZhangY, ZhangZC, LiF, SunTS, ShanJL, Guan K, et al. Long-term outcome of Dynesys dynamic stabilization for lumbar spinal stenosis. Chin Med J. 2018;131:2537–2543.

[11] PhamMH, MehtaVA, PatelNN, Jakoi AM, HsiehPC, LiuJC, et al. Complications associated with the Dynesys dynamic stabilization system: a comprehensive review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;40:E2.

[12] WangQ, LiuJ, ShiY, ChenY, YuH, MaJ, et al. Short-term effects of a dynamic neutralization system (Dynesys) for multi-segmental lumbar disc herniation. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:1409–1416.

[13] GuanJ, LiuT, FengN, Jiang G, LiW, YangK, et al. 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 Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23:998.

[14] JiZS, YangH, YangYH, Li SJ, LuoJX, ZhangGW, et al. Analysis of clinical effect and radiographic outcomes of isobar TTL system for two-segment lumbar degenerative disease: a retrospective study. BMC Surg. 2020;20:15.

[15] XingR, DouQ, LiX, LiuY, KongQ, Chen Q, et al. Posterior dynamic stabilization with direct pars repair via Wiltse approach for the treatment of lumbar spondylolysis: the application of a novel surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41:E494–E502.

[16] ChenSH, HsiaoCK, WangCW, Chen HH, ZhongZC. Biomechanical comparison between isobar and dynamic-transitional optima (DTO) hybrid lumbar fixators: a lumbosacral finite element and intersegmental motion analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2022;2022:8273853.

[17] QianJ, BaoZ, LiX, ZouJ, YangH. Short-term therapeutic efficacy of the isobar TTL dynamic internal fixation system for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc diseases. Pain Physician. 2016;19:E853–E861.

[18] KimSI, MinHK, HaKY, ParkHY, ChoCH, Cho RK, et al. Effects of restoration of sagittal alignment on adjacent segment degeneration in instrumented lumbar fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45:E1588–e1595.

[19] PfirrmannCW, Metzdorf A, ZanettiM, HodlerJ, BoosN. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26:1873–1878.

[20] ChouR. Low Back pain. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:ITC113–ITC128.

[21] WalterKL, O'Toole JE. Lumbar spinal stenosis. JAMA. 2022;328:310.

[22] de KunderSL, van Kuijk SMJ, RijkersK, CaelersIJMH, van Hemert WLW, de BieRA, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2017;17:1712–1721.

[23] BarreyC, PerrinG, ChampainS. Pedicle-Screw-Based Dynamic Systems and Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: Biomechanical and Clinical Experiences of Dynamic Fusion with Isobar TTL. ISRN Orthop. 2013;2013:183702.

[24] GaoJ, ZhaoW, ZhangX, Nong L, ZhouD, LvZ, 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.

[25] GuanJ, LiuT, LiW, ZhaoH, YangK, Li C, et al. 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. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17:116.

[26] ZhangL, ShuX, DuanY, Ye G, JinA. 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;26:1066–1070.

[27] LiZ, LiF, YuS, MaH, ChenZ, Zhang H, 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;20:394–399.

[28] LeeSE, JahngTA, KimHJ. Facet joint changes after application of lumbar nonfusion dynamic stabilization. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;40:E6.

[29] ZhangZM, JinDD, ChenJT. Comparative study of dynamic fixation with rigid fixation in the management of degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2008;46:346–349.

[30] KorovessisP, Papazisis Z, KoureasG, LambirisE. Rigid, semirigid versus dynamic instrumentation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a correlative radiological and clinical analysis of short-term results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29:735–742.

[31] HrabálekL, Wanek T, AdamusM. Treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis of the lumbosacral spine by decompression and dynamic transpedicular stabilisation. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cechoslov. 2011;78:431–436.

[32] FuL, FranceA, XieY, FangK, GanY, ZhangP. Functional and radiological outcomes of semi-rigid dynamic lumbar stabilization adjacent to single-level fusion after 2 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134:605–610.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 2024 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.